#i love how the movies are explicitly a queer allegory

[flawedfemalecharacter]

i love the xmen sm it fills me w sm queer joy

[project-sekai-facts]

I've seen many people stating that Airi is implied as transfem, and many saying it's merely a headcanon, but I haven't been able to find evidence to support either side as I have no idea of where that notion comes from. Do you know about any event/card stories or symbolism that could imply that she's transgender? Thanks in advance.

oooh this is a really interesting one for me actually! so straight off the bat, no airi is not canonically or implied trans. that said, a queer (in her case, trans specifically) reading of her story is totally valid, much like Toya's backstory for an in-game example, and for out of game examples stuff like Rin in Love Live! School Idol Project or Gwen in the Spider-Verse movies (these two support a trans reading, whilst Toya's story supports a more general queer reading).

I think the main cause of the reading comes from her fes story! While her childhood is first talked about in the first chapter of RE:START From Here!, it's very brief and the specific parts about her personality and presentation aren't much of the focus, aside from an incredibly short interaction between Airi and her mother where Airi thinks the idol on TV is cute and her mother tells her that there's nothing stopping her from being like that, then a similar interaction with her younger sister where she decides that she wants to be an idol.

What we learn from this is that Airi used to be a tomboy when she was younger, and was short tempered and aggressive, and often got into fights with boys (though in the interaction we are shown she does this to defend her little sister). She also discovered idols and decided she wanted to be one too, just as cute as the one on TV, which is the total opposite to how she was then. In terms of Airi's backstory serving as a trans allegory? I think you could get something out of this, though the allegory (intentional or not) is far more pronounced in her fes story. You could definitely view this flashback as her starting to realise she's a trans girl, and that she wants to be more girly. Especially when her sister says that Airi's just like the idol on TV, and she has a moment of realisation that she wants to be one too.

Now onto her fes story. First I'll just mention a little fandom thing. So back in 2021 when Airi's fes card was initially released, a fan translation (pictured) was posted to youtube that mistranslated her as being transgender. It was a error made by the translator where instead of saying how the boys she fought with called her a "too cute for a monster", she said they called her a "too cute for a boy". The translation was deleted a long time ago, but for some reason people still bring it up, even now. I think this is where a lot of misinterpretation over her being canonically trans comes from.

Now onto the actual fes story. In the first part of the story, Airi looks back on the interactions with her sister that we saw in Re:start, thinks that she'd love to see the look on her younger self's face if she could see herself now, which creates her fragment sekai. In the second part, after talking with her younger self for a bit, she calls little Airi a tomboy, and she's visibly uncomfortable with this. Present-day Airi then realises this past version of her must be from around the time she started to be bothered by how people viewed her as "rambunctious" or a tomboy. She also mentions that when she decided to become an idol she started ignoring boys teasing her about it, confirming that her tomboy personality and presentation was a source of mockery.

The most interesting part is that Airi says when she started wearing cute and girly clothing to school, she was mocked for it. Although the text explicitly states that for Airi, she was a GNC girl who was uncomfortable with her presentation and wanted to be more girly, this is literally something that has happened with Mizuki, who is all-but-stated canonically transfem. The rest of the story is Airi explaining what being an idol is like and her experiences to her younger self, who then proudly proclaims that she's going to become an idol.

As I said, the text explicitly states that she's a tomboyish girl before she decided she wanted to become an idol and wear cute clothes, which strongly suggests that she's cisgender (of course, she could be a GNC trans girl who came out when she was very young, but this is not canon). However, the fes story overall, and particularly the 3 lines of dialogue pictured above, strongly support a trans reading.

Airi was teased for wearing cute clothes, and while the text doesn't state it outright, you shouldn't have to be told that these were typically girly or feminine clothes, especially given the tshirt and dungarees that Airi wears on her child L2D model. As stated earlier, this exact same thing has happened with Mizuki, although the reactions from classmates and the girls themselves were slightly different on the account of Mizuki being canonically transgender. Airi is annoyed that her classmates think the cute clothes clash with her personality and make fun of her for it, but in Mizuki's case she questions if it's okay for her to wear such clothes because people think it's weird for her to be wearing it (the reason for it being weird is left unstated, but it's presumably because her classmates knew her as a boy at this point in time). Nonetheless, this mirrors the experiences of so many trans people in real life, who are mocked by the general public due to not fitting into the box of gender norms dictated by society.

Airi affirming that she's a girl is definitely the standout line here, though. It shows us how insecure little Airi was with her presentation, and how she wanted people to think of her as a proper, cute girl, instead of a "monster". So while Airi is not canonically trans, the text strongly supports her being read as such. It doesn't take a genius to work out how you could apply Airi growing up as a more masculine tomboy, then realising she wants to be a cute idol, then being teased for dressing in a traditionally feminine way is an allegory for a trans experience, intended or not.

Also absolutely not solid evidence of anything at all, but I often see people point out that Airi's trained The Strongest Idol Smile! 4* has a trans flag color palette, something we've seen in Mizuki cards before. However this is very likely unintentional and just done for artistic effect, the pink ribbons on the card are actually red on the costume (and you can tell in some parts of this artwork too). Still think it's a neat end to this post though.

[phosphorusab]

The Thing About Remus Lupin Being Queercoded (And How Bizarre it is in Hindsight that JK Rowling Ever Wrote Him)

I loved Remus Lupin as an undiagnosed Neurodivergent and unrealized queer kid. Not only was he the most competent Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher in the Harry Potter series, but genuinely cared about his pupils and was committed to their safety and education.

I remember being very comforted as a little anxious kid by watching the scene where he taught the class on how to face their fears through a boggart or privately teaching Harry how to use the Patronus.

He was an example of a genuinely good and helpful teacher, which I didn’t have in abundance throughout my K-12 education.

What I find extremely bizarre is that Remus Lupin had an explicitly queer allegory in his character, that JK Rowling retconned and killed off. Seeing her true colors and her politics, what was to be expected?

One thing that Rowling explicitly stated that ties Lupin to queerness is the lycanthropy. Werewolves, vampires, etc have had a queer history before Harry Potter, but in Rowling’s universe lycanthropy was a metaphor for the HIV/AIDS virus.

Lycanthropy is an incurable magical condition which causes the sufferer to turn into a uncontrollable violent wolf monster during a full moon. It can be alleviated with a Wolfsbane potion, much like the early cocktails of pills in the 80’s and 90’s were the first medication to prevent the worsening of HIV/AIDS.

The problem is how Remus contracted lycanthropy. The only other known lycanthrope in the series, Fenrir Greyback, intentionally infected Remus Lupin as a child. Fenrir explicitly enjoys preying on children and infecting as many people as he can with lycanthropy.

Explicitly linking HIV/AIDS as a metaphor for lycanthropy, and the only lycanthropes in the series is a literal child predator intentionally spreading magic HIV/AIDS and his victim, is extremely disgusting, thoughtless and poor taste- especially since gay/bisexual men being demonized as diseased sexual predators in the media.

The Prisoner of Azkaban came out in 1997, and Sorcerer’s Stone came out 2 years prior. HIV/AIDS was (and still is) a big issue in the LGBT+ community. Our community lost so many people and we will probably never shake off the stigma HIV/AIDS left on us, I honestly don’t expect it in my lifetime. Rowling couldn’t possibly not have known all of this, but intentionally used lycanthropy as an allegory for HIV/AIDS.

And the consequence of Remus Lupin being outed as a werewolf was being removed from his teaching position at Hogwarts, because parents complained that he would be a threat to their kids- despite most of Lupin’s students loving him, and had it not been for the events in Prisoner of Azkaban, his lycanthropy would still have been a decades long, well guarded Hogwarts secret.

How is this not parallel to the concern of kids having gay/lesbian teachers (closeted or not) that started in the what, the 50’s? And continues under a new scapegoat, that being openly transgender educators? Openly or not, transgender people being anywhere near children? But what would JK Rowling care, right?

Other evidence that the early Harry Potter fandom had in their arsenal that proved Lupin’s queerness was that he was a bachelor and seemed to have chemistry with another bachelor, being his childhood friend Sirius Black. Apparently, even the actors on set of the movies intentionally portrayed them as such.

Rowling did not appreciate constructive criticism, fans theories, attention to canonical details that she wrote that she had forgotten, or attention to plot holes. For whatever reason, she randomly stuck Remus with Tonks at the tail end of the books, having them get married and have a son in the middle of a war.

They never seemed to have any chemistry prior to this random last minute pairing. What I also find insidious in hindsight was that before Tonks got with Lupin, she was a pretty beloved character for her gender fluidity, having been born as a rare shape shifting Metamorphmagus. She was very spunky, independent, and expressed herself with alternative hair styles that would still make a few people clutch their pearls. She also rejected stereotypical womanhood, and explicitly preferred being referred to her surname “Tonks” instead of her birth name “Nymphadora” or “Dora” for short. But after she gets with Lupin and has Teddy, these traits are all erased.

And then they die, for no reason other than shock and to traumatize their child that doesn’t matter to the plot, because they were originally supposed to survive the ending.

I just find it really odd that Rowling decided to put the two most headcannoned queer characters in her books, who have historically “queer” magical abilities like the lycanthropic and shape shifting characteristics, and forced them into what she thinks will make everyone happy- a nuclear family.

I think she wrote Remus, and by extension Tonks, as queer completely by mistake and she had to correct that for whatever reason.

Because JK Rowling doesn’t have the guts or the capability to actually empathetically and delicately write a character like Lupin as queer- someone who isn’t evil or morally grey (like Dumbledore, confirmed in everything except canon) but an educator, a good one at that, who was run out of Hogwarts on a rail because of people just. like. her.

[agitowarrioroftheforest]

So this answer is more about body horror and queer libration, and I have no idea how this will land because this movie doesn’t explicitly say the character is trans (I think he is lol), but here me out:

There is this really interesting way of approaching body horror in the anime film Origin: Spirits of the Past (EN title) AKA Giniro no Kami no Agito (JP title) that came out in 2006.

I really like how in this film, the specific body horror of plants growing from skin is not seen as horrifying to the main character Agito or the town he grew up in.

There is a character displaced from a 100s of years past(this movie is post apocalyptic) who is extremely uncomfortable with it, but Agito, when he comes back from the woods changed- literally making a fae deal in exchange for the power to protect his people and said woods- he sees it as a new part of himself and accepts it. Is at peace with it. Actually states he wants it in the first scene he speaks in - fully knowing it he will need to adjust to new changes happening to his body.

I should mention that the process of decay is not seen as a horrible thing in the movie’s world, nor is letting the this fae forest alter you and become part of you. It changes Agito and the others with this power’s bodies but unlike many cases of body horror in other films, it doesn’t destroy them for it. It just transforms them.

Additionally, the things that make Agito strange and monstrous and horrific to the military state (that is set up in the desert next to his town and wishes to destroy the forest) are what the film frames as the things that make him strong, his powers, the changes to his appearance, his love for his people etc.

Also the fact that there’s an older woman with this same power that helps Agito get used to the new changes because she experienced them as well, is particularly powerful. They are something the film frames as an inseparable part of himself and something he deliberately wanted for himself even with the cost. (Those with this power eventually fully become trees when they have overused it, this movie doesn’t shy away from that full body transformation either)

I should add that Agito is also told at one point by that character from the past who thinks she is saving him, that “We can return your body to normal” and he fully rejects that, saying that no one forced him to be this way.

The body horror in this film is only seen as horror to those who refuse to understand it and seek to control or destroy it. And continue to see those with it as monsters. But in the story itself and especially the way this is animated, plants growing from skin looks beautiful. Lovingly animated.

It probably wasn’t intentional but that idea, that what makes Agito’s body other and strange are not things he or anyone should be ashamed of, sounds like one of the pillars behind queer liberation as a concept. That queer people shouldn’t need to conform or assimilate to a society that hates them, they should be free to be their whole selves. Obviously it’s not a perfect allegory but it’s definitely something i’ve found a lot of comfort in as a trans guy (points at the name i chose for myself ahaha….).

Idk if this is even close to what you were looking for with the original question. I don’t think i’d call the movie itself horror but given it’s spooky month, I keep thinking about this use of body horror specifically. If you read through all this, thank you for listening to my unhinged ramble.

Oh. Yeah I should also mention Agito goes from looking like this to looking like this after his transformation. So there is also. that.

it's october. what are some thoughts y'all have on trans horror (both in media & how trans people are seen with horror in culture)

[whatamidoingqueer]

crazy to me that to cishet ppl, nobody can be queer unless they explicitly come out to them.

let’s go with on-screen media, luca for example bc i just watched it. (spoilers obviously)

idc if the director intended for them to be queer or not, and idc what he publicly says about it, bc most people won’t know about that going into watching the movie.

but luca and alberto are in a world where they would be hated and feared for something that they can’t control, but something that they can hide.

the people in the town, before they figure out that luca and alberto are sea monsters, still know that they’re “weirdos” and “don’t belong” and “are hiding something.” they get bullied and physically assaulted for being different, even before anyone can put the language as to why they’re different.

luca would sit up at night just thinking about the surface, and would tentatively ask about it with his family just to get scolded for having such thoughts, bc “we don’t think or contemplate about the surface!!!”

luca was about to be sent away from his family “away from everything he loves” bc they were afraid of his life choices and that he would get hurt from them.

alberto’s dad abandoned him, and we don’t get an explanation. all we know is that alberto has a voice in his head called “bruno” who tells him everything he can’t do and that everyone is better off without him.

guillia and luca had a whole conversation talking about how out-of-place and different they feel (giullia specifically in the small town).

when guilllia finds out they’re sea monsters, she tells luca to leave and says “[name of small town] of all places?! they hunt sea monsters here!” and it’s implied that genova, a large city, is more accepting of sea monsters, or at least they don’t actively hunt them. gc

when the town becomes more accepting of sea monsters, the two elderly ladies always seen together reveal that they’re also sea monsters, and nobody bats an eye.

luca’s grandmother literally says “some will never accept him, but some will.”

and this isn’t even to mention the cute romantic chemistry that luca and alberto had, or the romantic tropes overused in straight media (alberto being jealous of luca and giullia- specifically about their physical affection, luca knowing exactly where alberto would run off to when he’s upset, alberto running to luca at the climax of the movie to save the day with the umbrella, alberto selling his prized possession just so luca can be happy, and luca and alberto holding hands until the last second of the train leaving with alberto still running after him as they’re both crying).

and cishet people will look at this and say “yup!! a movie about straight kids!! what a great movie about friendship and childhood! no other real themes explored in this little animation!! and if you DARE to fucking suggest it’s a queer allegory, i will accuse you of sexualizing children and pushing an agenda.”

like WHERE is the critical thinking??? i literally saw two pixar *fanatics* make an hour-long analysis of this movie and say that this was comparatively a low-stakes pixar movie bc the main plot point and the climax was a bike race and the main theme was lonliness. SIRS WHEN HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN PIXAR TO BE THAT SIMPLE??? AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT’S LOW STAKES??!! THE MAIN CHARACTERS WERE ALWAYS IN DANGER OF BEING OUTED AND KILLED AND THEY WERE FUCKING BEAT UP, I THINK MORE THAN ONCE!!!

and i’m SURE i’ve missed a lot of other queer points from the movie.

and to me, it’s just crazy that cishet ppl just don’t even consider the possibility that the two main characters might be queer and have a little schoolboy crush. and it’s wild that they’ll take the director’s word as law, like there’s no way that disney made him say that or something. and i’ve seen a few cishet ppl say that they first interpreted it as being a queer story, but they were obviously wrong bc the director said otherwise. and they do this not only with luca BUT WITH EVERY OTHER QUEER CODED STORY. and it gets frustrating that it literally has to be spelled out in order for them to believe queer people and not ALWAYS assume cishet is the default.

[jackshade21]

Buckle up, Buttercups this is gonna be a bumpy ride. It’s probably gonna be a long one cause I’m coming up with what I’m gonna say as I type this. I hope it’s at least entertaining. Also spoilers for Luca and Ponyo, if that matters to anyone.

For like a month now my latest hyperfixation has been Pixar’s latest film, Luca, as I’m sure anyone that actually pays attention to me may have noticed. During all this time I’ve seen some truly tepid takes.

It’s no secret by now that a lot of queer people have seen Luca as an allegory for coming out and for the queer experience. Myself included. I saw a lot of my own experiences as a 14 year old kid growing up queer reflected in this movie.

But we’ve all seen the backlash too. Reactionaries calling queer people perverse for daring to see themselves reflected in something.

“How dare you think they are gay! yOu’Re SeXuAlIzInG cHiLdReN!!!! WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?”

“UM, ACTUALLY...the director said they’re not gay!” 

(not gonna waste my time going over death of the author...again. Or how Casarosa has...UM ACTUALLY...supported the queer reading because art is, ya know, subjective.)

Whether it’s seeing queer allegory and subtext in the narrative itself or just thinking the two fish boys could have a crush on each other. Bozos are acting as if queer people want them to be explicitly sexual in a Pixar film. You all know this by now.

Well, I just watched Ponyo, because it’s Studio Ghibili, I hadn’t seen it and I’m a sucker for sea people. It was a nice movie. The animation was as gorgeous as anything I’ve come to expect from the studio. The story was admittedly not the most engaging for me personally but it was fun and I enjoyed myself. I loved all the old ladies SO much. Go off you old queens I’m here for it.

However, maybe it’s cause I’m late to the party, but where are the angry reactionaries at? Cause I don’t remember seeing them when the movie came out. Maybe cause I wasn’t engaged with the fan content for Ponyo I didn’t see it? All I remember is pretty high praise being heaped onto the movie.

You know the movie about a little fish girl that falls in love with a human boy? The movie where the little human boy has to perform “a test of the truest love” and to promise to love the little fish girl so she can become human? How she turns human from a kiss? The one where the little human boy and little fish girl are literally 5 years old. You know? THAT movie?

We all know why no one cared about that when it came to the 5 year olds in Ponyo and we all know why people are jumping over themselves to denounce any queer readings about the teenage Italian fish boy movie. But in case I have to spell it out for anyone it’s...

✨HOMOPHOBIA✨

Straight relationships are seen as pure and loving, queer relationships are seen as sinful and sexual. Also I see you people ready to type “but it’s called SEXuality!” That’s a dumb argument, you know it is, so I will only say if you think same-sex attraction is only about sex you’re wrong. If you don’t know it’s a dumb argument, I hate to break it to you Susan and Chet, but you’re heteroSEXual. Put that in your tea.

And to cover my bases, I’m not saying that if you don’t read Luca as an allegory for the queer experience or that if you don’t see Luca and Alberto as anything more than two platonic best friends that you’re homophobic.You’re not. There is a perfectly valid basis for that. The homophobia starts when straight people start dictating to queer people what their experiences are and telling them they are perverse for seeing those experiences reflected in a very obvious way right in front of them. The homophobia starts when you deny queer kids even exist. All queer adults were once queer kids.

Straight people don’t get to say we don’t love and that our relationships are based solely on explicit sex. We have been murdered for the crime of falling in love with people who society deemed as the wrong people. We have fought for that right to love. I’m tried of being afraid to walk down the street holding my boyfriend’s hand. I’m tired of seeing people with their “HOT TAKES” make insinuations that queer love is dirty and only about sex. You don’t get to dictate to me about what is or isn’t queer.

Side note, Can I please get a movie about how Ponyo’s parents fell in love? You know the sea-wizard and the sea goddess? Like please? Did you see that giant water woman? RADIANT!

[mashkaroom]

Lengthy analysis of Holes, as promised!. This will include spoilers, which will be marked. Just gonna go through the book and the philosophy/themes/connections I caught onto this time around. Stuff discussed, in order: connections to Camus, on the question of children’s books, systems, cycles, and why Stanley is gay and jewish 😏

Camus:

The first and perhaps most obvious set of texts/theories it makes sense to put Holes in conversation with is the works of Albert Camus. Holes starts out with a description of the sun and the heat, which readers of the Stranger will remember are major themes there. The heat continues to be a prominent part of the story, though thematically, it functions very differently in the two books. In The Stranger it primarily represents the indifference of the universe (or at least so claim a ton of sources and I’m inclined to agree) and the lack of control we exert over our own lives while in Holes it’s basically the opposite of that. The heat and drought is implied to be a semi-divine punishment for a past injustice and, moreover, the elite adults of the camp have air conditioning and access to shade: the sun does not affect everyone equally in Holes as it does in The Stranger (though even that is debatable: I don’t think this was Camus’s intent, but it’s notable that it’s only the white englishman who’s driven to murder by the sun. This could certainly be read as critique of colonizers who cannot/refuse to coexist with the land and environment and how the indigenous population always suffers for it, but I digress). The other Camusian parallel one is immediately inclined to draw is that, of course, of Sysiphus: there’s the repetitive and seemingly meaningless act of digging holes not to mention that carrying stuff up a mountain is both thematically and plot-wise a very important part of Holes. But, once again, it is eventually revealed that both acts do carry an inherent meaning. Holes does not present the image of an uncaring universe: on the contrary, destiny and semi-divine influence plays a major role. The story may start out with a series of seemingly random and inherently meaningless events, but as the story progresses, people, actions, items, and events become increasingly imbued with meaning. In the Holes universe, one must imagine Sisyphus redeemed, not through the act of rolling the stone but by rebelling against it. I have difficulty imagining that Sachar was not thinking of Camus while writing Holes, or, at the very least, that if he encountered Camus afterwards, he must have been struck by the similarities. I don’t know if there was a specific intent in creating a story so embroiled in Camusian absurdism, especially since the target readership is (allegedly) children who almost certainly are not recognizing specific allusions to Camus, so perhaps the similarities are purely aesthetic — after all, everything that is nominally similar does play quite different thematic roles. However, I would never pass up the opportunity to talk about the myth of sisyphus and I think placing Holes in dialogue with Camus can raise some interesting questions about the nature of meaning.

Is Holes a children’s book?

Speaking, though, of the target audience, the audience for this book is in fact children. What about it makes it a children’s book makes it difficult to say: the protagonists are children (and, I would argue, it is not a coming of age story, despite the claims of one piece of lit crit about Holes in which i disagreed with almost every claim made, but i digress once more) and the writing style is fairly simple: you can read it with a second-grader’s vocabulary. Also, of course, being a children’s book doesn’t (and crucially shouldn’t!) mean that it’s lacking in depth and complexity. However, I think most thematically rich children’s books tend to be quite allegorical. The Little Prince is a good example. Holes is just way too specific for its sole market to be children. It’s either intended to be read by multiple generations at once or for child readers to return to it as an adult. It addresses themes of racism (and not just generic racism, anti-black racism in the reconstruction south), homelessness, intergenerational trauma. and the modern carceral system. These are social critiques that will probably go over most kids’ heads (certainly over mine). However, the themes of the text are not inaccessible for children. You don’t have to understand the particular history of the US criminal justice system or even that Sachar is making a comparison to anything specific to get that the system that he’s portraying is unjust. Knowing the real-world context just adds another layer to the text. Holes also has one of the hallmarks of children’s books that I really like, which is a particular type of absurdism that the child characters come up against. This always rang true to me as a kid and well into my teens, when you start understanding that your life is controlled by some set of systems, but you haven’t quite gotten what those systems are or why and how they came about. Like nowadays, I can say “we did this in elementary school because of a state law, that because of a federal law, that because of the history of puritanism, and this because we got a grant for it”, but as a kid nobody tells you these things or really even cares to explain why the rules are as they are, and the systems that govern your world, often with no small degree of violence and almost always with an inherent disregard for your agency, are ineffable and slippery, and good children’s books capture this really well (Series of Unfortunate Events is probably my favorite example of this, where a secret organization that everything is implicated in and more more tragicomic details about it get revealed until the Baudelaire children find themselves to some degree members with mixed feelings is honestly an excellent coming-of-age allegory. oh, not to mention the constant conflict with bureacracy. god that series is so good, everyone read it). Back to Holes, Sachar weaves the more fantastical ineffable elements in with real-world issues so neatly. Stanley’s family is allegedly cursed, which is why Stanley keeps having bad luck, but he also lives in systemic poverty, which is also why he keeps having bad luck. Sachar eschews neither the allegorical elements common in children’s literature nor the more direct systemic critiques more often found in YA and adult lit, and it creates a really unique vibe. I think the story really benefited from having a children’s author, and I would love to see more authors in both children’s and adult lit do this!

Systems

Speaking of the systems, this book is surprisingly radical. Like it’s full-on an abolitionist text. The law is pretty much only ever presented as adversarial, both in the story of Stanley’s present time, and in Kate and Sam’s story. It’s implied if not stated repeatedly that Stanley and the other boys are pretty much victims of circumstance and have been imprisoned pretty much for the crime of being poor. The hole-digging is shown to be cruel and bad for the boys. It’s noted that in digging the holes Stanley’s heart hardened along with his muscles. This is of course very evocative of the system of retributive justice we have in America. Additionally, Camp Greenlake’s existence can ultimately be traced back to an act of racist violence, also in close parallel with our prison system. Hole’s stance on justice is very restorative. Punishments are never shown to work: only through righting the wrongs can true justice be achieved. Moreover, Holes even gives the opportunity for redemption to a minor antagonist when [minor spoiler] Derrick Dunne, the kid who was bullying Stanley in the beginning ultimately plays a small role in helping Stanley regain his freedom [spoiler over].

Cycles

Cycles are a major theme in holes, and Sachar creates a unique temporality to support this theme. There are 3 interwoven stories: that of Stanley’s in the present date, that of Stanley’s ancestors, and that of the land that Stanley is on (though, as I will delve into later, it’s at least a little implied that Stanley is descended from the characters in that story also). The stories from the past reach in and touch the present. You can’t untangle the past from the future. Looking at this again through a social justice lens, it could be seen as fairly progressive commentary on what to do with regards to America’s past wrongs. The past cannot and will not be left in the past: it must be dealt with on an ongoing basis. Even the warden, the greatest villain of Stanley’s story has a sympathetic moment at the end where it’s revealed that she, too, is stuck in a cycle of intergenerational trauma she can’t break free from.

Stanley is gay and jewish

Ok, I will now talk about how Stanley is a queer Jew, but this entire section will be riddled with spoilers, so read the book first and then come back!

A queer Jew?? i hear you ask. You’re just projecting. Yes, 100%. However, I think that interpreting Stanley as both these things adds to the thematic richness of the text. Let’s start with the Jewish bit: it’s not explicitly stated that Stanley is Jewish, but his great-great grandfather is a nerd-boy Latvian immigrant with the last name Yelnats, and his great-grandfather was a stockbrocker, so, like, ya know. Louis Sachar is also himself Jewish, as was the director of the movie, who cast Jews in the roles of Stanley and his family (dyk Shia LaBeouf is Jewish?? i did not), so I know I’m not the only one interpreting it this way. And honestly, does it not resemble the book of exodus quite a bit? They escape what is pretty much a form of slavery and wander in the desert. Sploosh resembles the well of Miriam, and then they ascend up a mountain to the “thumb of god”, perhaps in a parallel to Moses receiving the commandments. Is this a useful way to look at the text? Who knows. But what I think we do get from reading Stanley as Jewish is a more nuanced discussion of privilege and solidarity. If Stanley and his ancestors are Jewish (or at least Jew-ish), then what placed the curse upon his family (and, we see, Madame Zeroni’s family isn’t doing so great either) is the breaking of solidarity between oppressed people. But also, the fact that you are also marginalized does not wash you of the responsibility to other marginalized groups. I don’t think Sachar intended it this way, because I think he probably would have talked about it more if he had, but I would say this book can be read as a call to the American Jewish community to take an active role in forging solidarity with other marginalized groups and actively righting the wrong you, your ancestors, and your community wrought upon them.

Now, why do I think Stanley and Zero are gay? Before I go into how it augments the text thematically, I bring to your attention this passage.

Two nights later, Stanley lay awake staring up at the star-filled sky. He was too happy to fall asleep. 

He knew he had no reason to be happy. He had heard or read somewhere that right before a person freezes to death, he suddenly feels nice and warm. He wondered if perhaps he was experiencing something like that. 

It occurred to him that he couldn't remember the last time he felt happiness. It wasn't just being sent to Camp Green Lake that had made his life miserable. Before that he'd been unhappy at school, where he had no friends, and bullies like Derrick Dunne picked on him. No one liked him, and the truth was, he didn't especially like himself. 

He liked himself now.

 He wondered if he was delirious. He looked over at Zero sleeping near him. Zero's face was lit in the starlight, and there was a flower petal in front of his nose that moved back and forth as he breathed. It reminded Stanley of something out of a cartoon. Zero breathed in, and the petal was drawn up, almost touching his nose. Zero breathed out, and the petal moved toward his chin. It stayed on Zero's face for an amazingly long time before fluttering off to the side. 

Stanley considered placing it back in front of Zero's nose, but it wouldn't be the same.

Girl, I’m sorry, that’s gay as shit! It’s such tremendous tenderness, not to mention the traditionally romantic imagery of moonlight and the flower petal. There’s also the non-romantic aspects. Stanley’s inexplicable happiness and suddenly liking himself evokes, for me, at least, the experience of coming out to yourself, of realizing who you are. Later in this chapter, Stanley contemplates running away with Zero despite the fact that it would make them lifelong outlaws. This book, remember, was written in 1998, and homosexuality was decriminalized in 2003, and the book takes place in Texas. It would have been, if anything, even more evocative of gayness when it was published. Now as to how this increases the thematic richness of the text: obviously, in carrying Hector up to the thumb, giving him water, and singing the lullaby, he redeems the wrong done by his ancestor, after which his family’s luck immediately changed. However, after Hector and Zero return to camp Greenlake, rain falls there for the first time. What was redeemed here? Remember that earlier on we learn that what caused the drought was the fact that Sam the onion man (who was black) was murdered for kissing Kate Barlow (who was white) — so what would a [post-factum wronging of that right look like? Zero, as we remember, is black while Stanley is white, so them being in a romantic relationship would be a successful interracial relationship to redeem the one Kate and Sam weren’t able to have. It’s also, as I said earlier, implied that Stanley is descended from Kate Barlow on his mother’s side: Stanley remembers seeing the other half of the lipstick tube with her initials on it in his mother’s bedroom. I’d also argue that Sam the Onion Man is implied to be descended from Madame Zeroni (chronology-wise, I think he’d be her grandson). First of all, there’s no follow-up with Madame Zeroni’s son who moved to America, and pretty much all other plot threads are followed up with in Holes. Secondly, Sam mentions water running uphill, just like Madame Zeroni does. Even without these speculations being true, Stanley and Hector being gay would redeem the land they’re on, but If they are, the parallel with the other ancestral redemption arc becomes to much to imagine it was unintentional.

So anyway, those are my thoughts on Holes, now everyone go read it!

[mxtomituck]

I would say look up the Hayes Code and the documentary Celluloid Closet.

There was plenty of queer subtext in old movies from the Hayes Code era that went right over my head as a kid and looked perfectly respectable and innocent to audiences at the time. Now, as a queer adult, I’m STUNNED at how much they got away with because I get the references and I as a queer adult in the audience do a lot of the heavy lifting but it’s THERE.

If you can’t write explicitly gay characters, make them queer-coded. If you can’t make explicitly trans characters, use an allegory to tell a trans story.

Not to mention, from a literary perspective, there is SO MUCH ROOM for interpretation. Look at Twelfth Night. None of the characters is ever explicitly described as any particular sexuality but the same-sex stuff can be played close to the chest (pun intended) like in Mulan.

Also, imho, there’s something to be said for the relationship of the author to the work. Like, a lesbian author painstakingly describing the way the light hits the freckles on the protagonist’s bosom isn’t that much less gay just because she’s forced to put her words into a male character’s mouth.

Also, terms like man or woman are general enough when writing that you can have trans and queer characters without having to state that.

Finally, you can also set your stories in a historical or fictional context where they don’t use labels like gay or trans in the way we do. The modern western identity labels we know today are still fairly new in the grand scheme of things. Queer people have always existed, but a man from Ancient Greece and a man from modern-day Greece would not have the same concept of identity attached to that. An alien species might not have gender and might reproduce in different ways. You can always build an allegory off of that.

Being vague also works! You can write a song or a poem about being in love without revealing the gender of the person you’re describing. A knight can be “promised to another” while being too shy to talk about his beloved.

I’m a firm believer that constraints breed creativity. I’m very sad that you’re stuck in a situation where you can’t freely write what you want, but know that there are ways around this. You can still write (and write queer as hell) even without getting caught.

Oh also things like coded slang or secret signals like flowers. There were TONS of ways that lgbt folks used to silently and safely communicate that you can use to your advantage.!

Just some thoughts - hope this helps!

So my mom said she'd support me in writing my stories as long as I don't put in gay or trans characters. She is checking up on my story once in a while and reading it and I have no idea what to do. I want to include the LGBTQ+ community, but if this is happening, I don't know how I'll do it.

To be honest, I don’t know either. We’ve given advice on how to write queer characters and relationships where it’s not a blatant coming out but even that advice does come with hinting at exes, writing about taking hormones/picking up prescriptions. And I know there’s ways that you could write hints at characters being queer but if your work is being read by someone unsupportive I would say don’t risk it. Wanting to include the LGBTQ+ community in your work is great but if you are having your work monitored and this potentially could put in you in a harmful situation then I’d say it’s best to avoid for now. Your personal safety should come first.

-Mod Noah

[zelda-ffitzgerald]

I haven't seen the film either, but anon, just Google it. There are plenty of articles about the film and how it can be considered queercoded. It doesn't have to be about the kids having romantic feelings toward each other, but you know, gay children do exist. It's not about sexualization. They can become friends and form strong relationships without knowing or realizing the "romantic" side of things yet. And if it were two straight kids that people were cooing over for showing a cute, maybe crush, no one would have anything to say.

As I saw someone share, here is one take: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/06/review-luca-pixars-first-gay-movie-love-victor

"There is enough there to graft a queer reading onto—Luca’s doting parents (voiced by Maya Rudolph and Jim Gaffigan) are scared about how Luca’s identity may be greeted by those who don’t understand him, for instance—but the film could just as easily be seen as an allegory for other sorts of difference. The boys’ washing ashore brings to mind the recent immigration and refugee crisis gripping Europe, as people fleeing war-torn lands are met with hostility and shunned by governments as they simply try to survive. Or the film could more broadly just be about a particular time in early adolescence, when kids tend to leapfrog over one another on their way to young adulthood, sometimes leaving each other behind as they grow into their true selves and race down newly open paths. 

...

Casarosa has explicitly said that the film is not a queer story, that it is all “platonic” and determinedly “pre-pubescent.” That suggests a limited understanding of gay growing up, particularly of when our feelings of affection and special closeness and difference can first develop. It would seem, as it so often does, that in Casarosa’s (and perhaps Disney’s) view, queerness must specifically involve sex to be queerness at all. And, of course, Pixar is never going to make a movie, ostensibly for kids, that even hints at sex."

So yes, people in the queer community identify with it as it speaks to the experience--whether of struggles with acceptance, coming out, family dynamics, etc. And it doesn't have to be about the characters being gay or not, but why does that bother so many people?

Perfectly said ❤️

[transgirl-catra]

She-Ra and the power of inherently queer stories

uploading my essay here for the anon who wanted it, theres definitely a lot more that I wouldve liked to cover if i wasnt page limited and rushing lol

On paper, queer representation in media is vastly improved from where it was just 5-10 years ago. In that time plenty of high-profile shows and movies have introduced at least one openly gay character.  Although this is, relatively speaking, a massive step from where we were before, many of these feel like incredibly superficial depictions made by and for straight people to feel good about themselves (and to blow way out of proportion in marketing so that the gays will give you money, of course).  Sure the character shows up, talks about his husband, and they might even kiss on screen if you’re really lucky. But all of this is done in such a way that it can be edited out for international markets without disrupting the flow of the film, because these characters being queer isn’t ultimately that important, and whoever’s in charge considers queer and straight characters to be interchangable.  As a result, these depictions often fail to resonate with the queer people who need to see them most, lacking the nuance that comes with queer life.

One show that absolutely smashes this, however, is Noelle Stevenson’s She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (2018).  A reboot of the classic (but incredibly dated) 1980s cartoon, She-ra at its core is the story of Adora and Catra, two childhood best friends who find themselves on opposite sides of a war and journey from love to hate and all the way back again before they realize their true feelings for eachother, saving their world (and themselves) in the process. To be clear, the show includes multiple unambiguously, canonically queer characters in its recurring cast from the beginning from a married lesbian couple to a genderfluid shapeshifter.  But as Stevenson said in an interview reflecting on representation in the show, she wanted to focus on “Not just the very clear straight-forward, incidental representation but the more complex, subtle, nuanced stories that play out over time and reflect more aspects of ourselves other than just the right to get married. There's so much more wrapped into our experiences."  This definitely shines through in the show.  When Catra and Adora are growing up as child soldiers for the Horde, they form a deep emotional bond to protect eachother from Shadow Weaver, their emotionally abusive commander who serves as the only real parental figure that either of them have.

One thing that quickly became apparent in discussion surrounding the show was the different ways that people interpreted this situation depending on their own identities.  Many cishet people read Catra and Adora as more like adoptive sisters at first (a fairly common misread of lesbian relationships in general), but for others it resonated as it was meant to: an allegory for the way that queer people find shelter in eachother even in situations where it’s dangerous to express themselves openly.  Even though neither of them fully understand the depth of their feelings, over the course of the first episode alone we see both Catra and Adora put themself in harm’s way to protect the other multiple times, both willing to endure the abuse in order to see their goal of taking over together come to fruition.  However, things change when Adora finds out that she’s the heir to a legendary power and deserts the Horde to join the rebellion, unable to convince Catra to leave with her. The tension between Adora’s guilt over leaving the only person she’s ever cared about and the resentment Catra feels for Adora’s perceived abandonment of her and everything they’ve worked for is the driving emotional conflict for basically the entire show.

While Adora is living in the capital city and growing into her new power, Shadow Weaver and others manipulate Catra’s feelings, convincing her that Adora abandoned her because it was convenient and never truly cared.  She becomes convinced of this, slipping into resentment and self-hatred that was very familiar for me as a trans person (Catra is heavily trans-coded, but that would be a whole paper itself), and begins lashing out at both herself and anyone who tries to get close to her.  However, she can never truly bring herself to hate Adora, and realizes that no amount of power will make her happy, but doesn’t believe that Adora could ever possibly share her feelings.  By the time Horde Prime, the final villain of the show, arrives, Catra willingly submits herself to mind control in the hopes that it will take the pain away.  Horde Prime is a fairly blatant stand in for homophobic religious leaders, and as such literally baptizes Catra into his hive mind, declaring that “all beings must suffer to become pure”, providing a very clear link to real life ‘conversion therapy’.  Adora, however, refuses to give up, her feelings strong enough to literally revive a dead Catra after Prime kills her.

The thing that really cements She-Ra as both an explicitly and implicitly queer story, however, is its ending.  These themes of emotional abuse and trauma, both familiar to many queer people, have been built expertly throughout the show, and in the end Catra finally confessing her feelings is what gives Adora the strength to save the planet (mirroring her love saving Catra a few episodes earlier).  Ultimately, Adora and Catra both needed to overcome their own self destructive tendencies before they were able to be together rather than one of them waiting on the other to fix them (although the support certainly helps), subverting many of the harmful tropes typical to straight romances.  As Stevenson says later in the same interview, “we didn’t know if we were going to be able to make it explicit, so In the meantime [we were] trying to build a framework into the very DNA of the show”.  As paradoxical as it seems that the way to get around censorship is to make the show more queer, it makes a lot of sense.  Even if Catra and Adora hadn’t kissed at the end and gotten their fairytale ending, it still would have been an undeniably queer story if you knew what to look for. Ultimately, my hope is that the success of She-Ra and other shows like it will allow for a wider range of queer stories to reach screens.  It’s been really hard for me to avoid turning this into a personal essay, because the show really hit me very hard during a very formative time in my life as I navigated my identity and struggled with a lot of similar feelings to the main characters, which is why its so important to me to analyze how it manages to resonate with that and explore what being queer means and how it affects all of your life.

Sources Cited:

https://www.papermag.com/rebecca-sugar-noelle-stevenson-2646446747.html

[asinajar]

Hi, there @otnesse! I'm Mason (@AsInAJar), the writer of the article that you've shared here. Thanks, by the way. I mean that. It's a big help & I appreciate it.

First I want to ask if you actually read my article. Not because it seems obvious that you didn't and therefore are taking my words out of context, but because about seven (7) paragraphs into my article I explicitly say, "But, it’s important to note, that authorial intent is not the point of why we’re talking about the mermaid girl story today." And if you had read my article then it would be quite a misrepresentation of my entire point to ignore that I'm not actually claiming authorial intent about the story. Especially when I go on in the article to say, "The original story of Hans Christian Andersen’s mermaid — who by the way was never named — can be thought of as a self-insert character as much as it can be thought of as a spiritual or religious metaphor. Andersen isn’t around to be asked, and not only are both ideas valid for personal interpretation and enjoyment but authorial intent isn’t required for an audience to get a message from a story." And that's my main point in it: that marginalized groups relate to this story because they relate to the mermaid's experience which means that for queer people it's a queer allegory (even though the love is hetero), for trans people it's about gender transition (even though she doesn't change gender), for BIPOC people it's about race (even though she isn't human), and for you & me we see autism. I say things like this so much and so frequently that it feels like it would be impossible for someone with a literalist interpretation of a nearly 200-year-old story to not get so if you did read the article in full then because I was so direct and explicit in what I meant I would have to assume that you're deliberately misinterpreting what I mean. Which wouldn't be fair to anything I was saying.

Beyond that, I also want to add that my point for writing this was to respond to the racism being hurled at the 2023 movie from people demanding that it wasn't a "black" story who were very unwelcoming, racist, homophobic, and transphobic to diverse audiences who were trying to enjoy a story & who were excited that a fictional character would have a different hex code on the screen. I'd like you to keep in mind that I'm making the case that the intended audience of the remake has always been here for this story, and like you has always related to the experience of the mermaid specifically because of their identity.

On the same note, since you relate to it as an autistic person (like me!) I need to point out that it's very easy to turn your comment right around and point out that the mermaid doesn't actually have anything to do with autism in the text, just as much as the text doesn't explicitly mention the things I mentioned, and everything you're about to say to defend your interpretation and how you relate to the story is exactly the same and applicable to everything I said in the article, which you should read. If you haven't already. The same people saying, "The Little Mermaid isn't about race" or "The Little Mermaid isn't about gender" are the same people saying, "The Little Mermaid isn't about autism" because they're bigots trying to keep marginalized people out.

[animebw]

Binge-Watching: Carole & Tuesday, Episodes 22-24

God, I really didn’t want to write this post. But one way or another, the curtain must fall.

The Worst Kind of Sorrow

Carole & Tuesday’s second half sucks.

I’ve been dancing around that realization all throughout the past twelve episodes, trying to think of any possible explanation that didn’t involve admitting it. Honestly, I think I was afraid to accept it; I really liked the first half of this show, and I didn’t want to feel like I couldn’t like it anymore. But the longer I keep from stating the obvious, the harder it’s gonna be to finally process it. Carole & Tuesday’s second half isn’t just substantially weaker than the first, it’s an outright failure. Not a disaster, but an awkward, frustrating twelve episodes that tries to push itself too far and pays miserably for it. And the truly heartbreaking thing is, it only fell so far because it tried to jump so high. It was done in not by laziness, but ambition, perhaps some of the grandest ambition I’ve seen from anime in a while, from one of anime’s most ambitious creators. It was trying to be something really special... and it ended up shooting itself in the foot. And the sting of that loss is gonna linger long after the credits have rolled.

It was always going to be a difficult task to pull off what the second half was trying to do. Carole & Tuesday started out as a wholesome, sincere, even corny tribute to music with a socially conscious edge, and it was so damn good at being exactly. But the second half wanted to push that social consciousness to the forefront and turn this charming, almost fairy-tale-esque musical extravaganza into an outright political allegory, with explicit references to immigration, refugees, Trumpian politics, and the rising xenophabia and nationalism of the 2016 campaign. It’s like watching La La Land suddenly decide it wants to be Moonlight; how the hell do you even begin to pull that off? And sadly, Carole & Tuesday’s answer is to pretend like nothing’s changed. It’s just as wholesome, sincere and corny in its second half as its first, but now instead of being set against the kind of charming fable that supports that ethos, it’s set against a backdrop of serious, real-life social issues that demand a darker, more considerate approach. So the serious issues at play are awkwardly coated in cotton candy dust, and the end result is a limp, compromised flop. The racism and xenophobia of Valerie’s campaign is boiled down to “Oh, it was just some asshole tricking her.” There’s potent imagery of artists of color getting arrested for speaking out against the system, but the girls frame it as “Oh no, we can’t let music die!” with shockingly little appraisal for the racial/ethnic component. And the whole situation is fixed not by a serious confrontation with the systems of power that perpetuate these complex social issues, but a couple bad actors getting arrested and a coalition of artists pulling together their own version of that “Imagine” video we all made fun of a couple weeks back.

And it sucks. Like, it really sucks. It’s uncomfortable, it rings hollow, and it comes off depressingly shallow and arrogant. I wasn’t against the idea of Carole & Tuesday going political; it always had a social conscience, and it always made a conscious effort to keep its characters diverse backgrounds in mind. But there’s a difference between having a welcome progressive streak and deciding to explicitly tackle topical issues, and this show didn’t even try to bridge the difference. But the backdrop the second half takes place against was never gonna work with the first half’s ethos. You simply can’t treat these weighty, topical subjects with the same level of nuance and gravitas you’d afford to a Disney princess movie. And I love Disney princess movies! Heck, Disney princess movies can even be topical; Frozen 2 managed to sneak in a commentary on colonialism alongside its sisterly drama and barely-concealed queer metaphors. But it only managed to pull it off because it made the conscious decision to grow up from the first movie’s fairy tale framework and evolve the way it approached its conflicts. Carole & Tuesday could have tried to similarly grow up in its second half, but instead, it decided to remain in the fairy tale, even as it started tackling subjects that no fairy tale could ever be equipped to handle. And the result is exactly as confounding and unsatisfying as it sounds.

Mother, Mother, Mother

But it wasn’t enough for Carole & Tuesday to mess up its approach to politics. It had to face-plant just as hard when dealing with the subject of motherhood. God dammit, didn’t I say I was worried this was gonna happen? Didn’t I say anime sucks at dealing with abusive parental figures and I was worried Carole & Tuesday was going to fall into the same trap? Dhalia and Valerie were both severely unhealthy for their daughters, pushing them into their boxes of what they wanted their kids to be like while ignoring their own needs. They were flawed, even complex people, but they hurt their daughters all the same. But not only does the show find time to redeem them without them ever putting in the work to earn it, the final song of the whole show, the Seven Minute Miracle we’ve been building towards, is a fucking tribute to their parenting. THIS IS WHAT THEY DECIDED TO END WITH. See, this is why you can’t treat serious issues like you treat whimsy; you end up simplifying and downplaying subjects that are still really jagged and painful to a lot of people. Dhalia made Angela’s life hell by trying to use her as a proxy to fulfill her own dream, and it’s even implied she was physically abusive towards her at some point, but she says she loves her right before dying, and somehow that’s all that matters anymore. Valerie was overly controlling towards Tuesday and embarked upon a xenophobic political campaign against her son’s wishes, but she changes course once the truth about Jerry is revealed and it’s like the show just forgot about all the damage she’s done. It’s the laziest, most cowardly direction this show could have gone in.

The truly sad thing is, I almost see a version where this idea worked. The big idea of the ending song is about how despite us all coming from different backgrounds, we’ve all grown up with the common experience of belonging somewhere, to someone. It’s about finding common ground despite our differences, acknowledging the imperfections of our situations- in life, in our parents- and hoping we can reach something better under the guidance of the people who care for us. Theoretically, it should be about taking the complexities of our characters’ family lives and using them as fuel to bring the entire human race together as one big family, flawed and imperfect but striving to be better nonetheless. And the show isn’t blind to that complexity; Tuesday even outright says that sometimes mothers hug us, and sometimes they constrain us. It’s taken care to show how complicated everyone’s feelings towards their parents are, and how complicated those parents are in turn. Dhalia genuinely wanted to make things better between her and Angela, she was far from a monster. But the ending sucks all of that nuance out. It doesn’t allow any space for Angela or Tuesday to really get closure over the scars their parents left them. It doesn’t allow any time for Valerie to really contend with the damage she’s caused, both as a parent and a political figure. It absolves them of all sin with the barest token gestures toward Valerie “taking responsibility” by stepping out of the race; apparently she holds no responsibility for the racism she’s encouraged, or the artists her rhetoric helped imprison, or the stifling upbringing she apparently gave to Tuesday and Spencer. Nope, it’s all okay because she’s their mother, and all the harm she caused apparently just vanishes into the ether. What a cowardly fucking cop-out.

The Seven-Minute Mediocrity

Look, I wish I didn’t have to write this post. I wish I could come away from Carole & Tuesday feeling that there might have been some rough spots, but it all came together in the end. I wish I could sit here gushing about how great the music still is, or how sorry I felt for Angela as she struggled to keep standing at her Grammy’s performance, or how Carole tearing up at Tuesday’s birthday present actually made me tear up too (GOD THEY’RE SO SOFT). But this just doesn’t work for me. You can’t apply this level of sentimentality to such thorny, painfully complex issues and expect it all to work out. It sands down the edges, it neuters the bite, and it disrespects the gravity of the trauma of Trump and abuse by treating it with kid gloves. Carole & Tuesday didn’t need to go explicitly political or tackle social issues to be worthwhile, or even meaningful; I loved the simple joys of its first half. But if it was going to try and be bigger than that, it needed to push itself to actually rise to the storytelling such a radical shift would demand. And it didn’t. And as a result, Carole & Tuesday does the worst possible thing any feel-good story can do: it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. And that’s gonna hurt for a long, long time.

Odds and Ends

-”Steve! Hi.” Aaaah, just like awards shows at home. Tacky political jokes and all.

-”We’re gonna kick some ass.” Okay, Crystal’s great.

-Oh man, I can finally download the full album now! HUZZAH!

-Oh damn, Ertegun making a political statement in support of his friend Tao? Maybe you’re not such a bad guy after all.

-”If you want to silence me, try putting my soul in handcuffs!” Yep, I like him.

-So... what exactly was going on with Tao sort of being Angela’s half-brother by artificial cloning? Because that whole thread completely lost me.

-Woah, the landlord talks! Good for him!

-”Thank you for staying with Carole.” He ships it too, doesn’t he?

Alright, I think that’s enough for now. I’m gonna stew on my feelings for a bit, and then I’ll come back with my series reflection, as well as what show I’ll be watching next.

[ckatmyla]

Elsa’s Girlfriend and the Bottom Line [an essay]

It is safe to say that – even nearly six years on from its release – Frozen is still a phenomenon. Despite its over-saturation and the backlash it inevitably faced because of it, Frozen is still a strong film from Disney with great characters, beautiful songs, and a lovely core theme about the power of familial love.

(its only real stumbling block in this blogger's opinion would be its case of 'twist villain syndrome' but we'll just gloss over that for this post.)

Although it is certainly true that this is a film for every age group, it continues to strike a chord the most with kids. I work in a daycare with children ages three to five (most of whom were not even born yet when Frozen was released) and it is still one of the most requested movies for me to show them. They argue over who gets to play as Elsa and Anna during dress up time, and I have even encouraged some of the young boys that it is perfectly fine to like a 'girl  movie' if you like the characters so much.

Even though both sisters in the movie are integral to the plot, and I tend to speak about them as a unit, for most of the kids in my class it's all about Elsa. Literally, they don't even call the movie Frozen, they just call it 'Elsa'.

It brings back memories of that Christmas season in 2013 when I went to the Disney store and all of the Elsa dolls were gone, leaving most of the Annas still on the shelf (which made me quite sad, since I tend to relate to Anna more myself).

It's not a stretch to say that Elsa is not only the breakout character of her movie, but a huge part of its crazy popularity. Everyone knows her, knows her powers, and knows her iconic  song (whether or not they like it.)

She is an icon to so many people across the world, and as such thee are certain aspects of her future in the Frozen sequel that many people would like to have addressed. Will she continue to harness her powers or perhaps learn from where they came? Will she continue to break down the walls she built up around herself to let her sister closer to her? And possibly the biggest and most controversial question: will she ever find romantic love and if so, will it be with a man or a woman?

While there is something to be said about the fact that Elsa is a strong, independent queen who don't need no significant other of any sort (and as previously stated there are other aspects of her story that need to be addressed just as much if not more so than who she's courting), there is merit in the theory and/or hope a good portion of her fans have that she just might be into girls.

While researching for this post, I read two of the children/middle grade Frozen chapter books: A Frozen Heart by Elizabeth Rudnick and A Warm Welcome by Erica David.

In Frozen Heart, we follow both Anna's and Hans' perspectives during the events of the movie, and during one of the portions from Hans' point of view we learn that Elsa has not only done what we have seen her do (close the gates of the castle to her subjects and isolate herself as much as possible) but evidently turned away any potential suitors looking to court her.

And in Warm Welcome, Elsa an co. travel to the kingdom of Eldora where they meet the queen of that land named Marisol and we see from Elsa's point of view that she finds the queen's name beautiful. Now, one could take that however they wanted, but when I showed that part to my friend she said 'Wow Elsa, how very gay of you.”

Then of course there is the queer-coded subtext of Elsa's story. Being told that she should hide her powers and conceal her true self from the world until she is finally able to accept herself in the now forever-ingrained-in-our-brains earworm.

Now the production team of the movie could have spun her story another way to make the powers more explicitly nothing more with no perceived allegory other than 'being different is okay'. BUT one exchange Elsa has with Anna after they meet up again post-Let It Go makes one wonder. She explicitly says that she left Arendelle so that she could 'be who she is without hurting anybody'. That alone colors her powers in a different light, and makes them far much more than a simple  magical ability and closer to the same type of vibe one gets from the subtext of the X-Men.

So, there is definitely some evidence to support the hypothesis that Elsa could be sub-textually queer, but this blog post is centered around the big question: Should it be overtly canon?

While this blogger would be perfectly happy to continue her headcanon that Elsa is asexual (possibly aromantic) and will make it through the entirety of Frozen 2 with no love interest whatsoever, I can also see the other side of the debate.

Most would agree that a female-led animated film hardly ever has a protagonist not fall in love by the end. And when they do they are usually children and so don't need a love interest (Moana and Coraline to name a couple), but they do happen occasionally. Elsa would still be an amazing paragon of female empowerment if she were to remain single, leaving the romantic love story to that of her sister and Kristoff.

BUT what is also abundantly clear is that we have yet to see a main character in an animated film fall in love with a person of the same gender. It would be a game-changer in the worlds of animation and family entertainment, for sure. And while some would say that that type of thing is unsuitable for children to see, most of those people are perfectly fine with the plethora of heteromantic pairs so abundant in animation. (If the argument is that kids shouldn't see romantic love between anyone that would be a different thing, but I have never heard any outcry about that.)

Were Disney even to approach it, there is also the question as to whether or not Elsa is the right character to make that particular story choice. Yes, she is a prime candidate, but as she is one of the most beloved Disney characters possibly ever, there would inevitably be some backlash to her and with that to the Frozen brand (because remember, Disney is foremost all about making money).

The other option some have some up with -to create an entirely new animated film where we star a same-sex couple – has merit as well. It could potentially introduce not one but two new princesses to the Disney Princess lineup and do all of the things that the LGBTQ community and its allies want out of Elsa while giving us a brand new, possibly totally original new story.

This blogger would be completely on board for that as well, but there is also in this idea the possibility of a backlash, or even a boycott. And if the first same-sex animated feature doesn't do well at the box office or in the merch sales, there might not be another one for a long time - if ever again.

Frozen 2 on the other hand – however the quality of the film ends up being – is almost a guaranteed hit before it even comes out. It is sure to rake in both ticket and merch sales by the boatload, even if they do decide to give Elsa a love interest of any gender.

So, the concluding statement should be in favor of giving Elsa a same-sex romantic plotline, right? If they're  going to actually do it, doing it with this movie would pose the least risk to the bottom line.

There is one more thing to consider, however: The story.

One of Disney's adoptive child Pixar's founding rules is that 'story is king'. That means that whatever will make the story as a whole stronger and the best it can be is what should be done for any film.

(However you feel about Pixar's latest outings, that's still one of their philosophies).

So, the real final conclusion of this post/essay is that when it comes down to it, Elsa should have the storyline that best fits the overall plot and make Frozen 2 the strongest movie it can be. They could always just throw in a girlfriend for her with no real thought other than 'they want representation'. That is what inevitably failed the attempt of ABC show Once Upon A Time when they decided to introduce a same-sex romance.

If the very first female-female romance in an animated film is going to happen with Elsa, it needs to feel natural and integral to the story. It can't feel tacked-on just for the sake of having it.

The same could be said of giving her a male love interest, or allowing her to remain single. As long as it fits the story and Elsa remains the wonderful character that so many have fallen in love with, any outcome would be fine.

I'm all for Elsa opening up her heart to new experiences like romantic love, as a fan I want that for her. I want her to stay close to her sister and become more  confident in her powers, and if the story supports it, find love with whomever her heart desires.

In this blogger's opinion though, anything other than a male love interest for her would be preferable. We already have so very many of those stories told already (even in the same franchise). Elsa deserves something different, something as groundbreaking as she is.

Whatever is in store for our Queen of Arendelle, I can tell you I will have my ticket to the first screening I can find of the sequel in order to find out.

[thebookworm0001]

Matrix Resurrection thoughts/spoilers under the cut

Oh my god this movie was queer

Blue haired matrix character is called Bugs/Bunny and they radiate enby vibes. May also be girlfriends with one of the other crew. Also have you seen their outfits?

Neil Patrick Harris is the Analyst- the machine in charge of running this version of the matrix - and he is essentially running conversion therapy on Neo. Constantly deadnames him, constantly gaslights him to ensure he believes his memories of the matrix are psychotic episodes

Speaking of - they explain away his memories by making The Matrix a video game series that Neo wrote. And they use this setup to get meta as hell. The studio that owns the game company is Warner Brothers and they’re forcing them to make another Matrix game. They then cut to a brainstorming room where various people explain what they associate with the matrix. Real people explicitly say it’s about being trans, eco-fascism, and an allegory for capitalism. The machine that exists to spy on Neo insists that it’s primarily about guns and violence and fight scenes. This goes on for some time.

This movie is about love. Period. Neo only gets motivated because he wants to see Trinity again. He brings up the fact that he never once believed himself to be The One - but Trinity did. The finale of this movie essentially said that Neo and Trinty together were the one. She gets to do the cool flying shit too while Neo dangles helplessly in awe of his kickass girlfriend.

Johnathon Groff is a resurrected Agent Smith and it kinda works? He’s got a slightly different personality - like how instead of calling Neo ‘Mr. Anderson’ he goes with ‘Tom’ which feels. Idk. The spirit of the character is still very much there but it’s very much Not Hugo Weaving.

Trinity got stuck in a heterosexual marriage with kids in her matrix life. Her husband’s name is - and I shit you not - Chad.

Machines are not the bad guys! ‘Others’ are not the enemy! The bad guys are the people who choose to oppress and exploit others for their own benefit! It’s not even subtle you have several machines - they got a new name I don’t remember - that are explicitly allied with humans. The ‘us and them’ narrative is complete bullshit and they waste no time telling you that many times.

They could have done with less splicing in of of the original films. With neo in the beginning it worked as his suppressed memories coming in - after that it felt just a tad too much like fanservice.

Morpheus is young because he’s not Morpheus. Not that Morpheus at least. He’s a program/machine that Neo as a Game Dev programmed inside a slice of the Matrix as a Video Game that comes out of said video game slice (modle I think they called it?) to do what the og Morpheus did in waking Neo up. That is the least complicated version of that story. Friendly Machines also now get cool floating magnet bodies in the real world.

So. Many. Callbacks. Most I loved. Thought the ‘I still know kung fu’ line wasn’t super necessary. Still fun. The Merovingian being an angry boomer yelling about how good the world used to be was funny.

Trinity is a badass motherfucker and I love her.

The movie ends with Trinity and Neo deciding they’ll remake the matrix - complete with rainbow skies. Again, the movie ain’t subtle about the love message or the queer stuff

[arcanistouroboros]

I want to see a Digimon season with...

A small primary cast size to focus on establishing the main characters' personalities and dynamics with their partners/allies/families, while still treating the partners as fleshed out non-satellite characters building their own interests and relationships. (Hello Tamers!) Everybody gets a time to shine; no wasted characters, no leads relegated to Mr. Exposition or Butt Monkey, or spending the final arc staring up at the sky in awe of their own abject obsolescence. (Goodbye Tamers.)

A Goggle-boy who isn't a (net) zero-growth or impossibly pure everyman character. A (human) Lancer who doesn't run away at every exit or try to kill a teammate at the first plot opportunity. Digimon who disagree with their human partners and have personal issues with other partner Digimon. Morally grey allies who get their hands dirty because the heroes won't -- and aren't inherently wrong to do so, regretting that it needed to be done but not having done it. Characters who struggle with mental illness, identity, inadequacy, race issues, internalized homophobia, etc. A truly fire-forged team of ever-evolving relationships that must learn to come together Avengers-style by the end.

Every single partner Digimon achieving full, independent evolutionary lines in both directions, rather than just favoring Goggles and Lancer. (If Goggles and Lancer get a bonus mode-change or combo evolution, fine. But regular Digivolution should be even, and even with a super-mode they shouldn't beat their allies out by much.) 

Bonus points if everyone achieves a super-mode by different means (Burst Mode, DNA Digivolution, Biomerge, X-Evolution...).

A way for humans to consistently participate in the melee with their partners, rather than just be useless damsels-in-distress who have to cry for combat (and therefore plot) to move forward. (Marcus’ power was barely used; Tamers gave up on cards early on and they were incompatible by Biomerges anyway.) Human powers should be clearly defined, not just being vaguely “special” or emotion-powered batteries.

Dynamic and strategic combat that doesn't boil down to "attack, evolve, repeat until attack one-shots the target." There should be built-in downsides to over-Digivolving your partner when unnecessary, enemies who tank multiple hits and find ways to make Digivolution difficult, and demonstrated use of natural weaknesses and resources. Show the leader has the tactical know-how to keep the position.

No formulas once the "get everyone to Champion" prologue ends and the villain arcs begin. Not every episode needs a battle, as long as they aren't plot-agnostic filler either.

A DNA Digivolution achieved through explicitly queer romance. And someone explaining love to a Digimon. And exploring the implications of a human having two "partners" when one of them is a dependent alien entity who has never experienced jealousy or faced competitors they couldn’t kill before. ('Cuz the writers are cowards who only write chaste, unrequited crushes or married couples.)

Allegory of race relations using the multitudinous species of Digimon as both example and contrast. (Frontier tried, but gave up early.)

Someone explaining death to a species that regularly reincarnates, and discussing why humans fear it.

A protagonist being sent to the Dark Area of the Digital World, and exploration of that area... alone.

Exploration of what happens when a human and their Digimon partner are separated for long periods.

Definition of the full capabilities of a Digivice. What connects each person or Digimon to a specific one? What prevents someone from stealing your Digivice for their use, or using theirs on your partner? (Especially frustrating in Adventure when each device is identical and probably interchangeable, and in the 02 movie where Willis has just one despite two partners.)

The darker implications of someone unstable getting a Digimon partner and being set upon the real world. Using their partner to wreak havoc/commit crimes/get revenge, or even just envying another person's partner Digimon (particularly after a new evolution is achieved), and how that affects their own partner.

Villain arcs that directly lead into or logically result from one another; no surprise major (particularly final) enemies or forgotten arcs.

Nary a mention of Yggdrasill, thanks -- unless he's explicitly already dead, with no more impact on the world besides a sudden absence. Myotismon too.

A look into how the Digital World is governed. Multiple seasons show there are large-scale regional leaders, but they are only ever seen as purely antagonistic or Too Good For This Sinful Earth from the humans' perspective. How do they lead? What is their platform, and impact? Are they all war leaders in a savage world, or is there some political savvy and bureaucracy? What policy issues do they face? Does anyone in the Digital World expect peace? Are there sympathetic revolutionaries against the current system?

And finally: a Leomon that survives, subverting all expectations. (Their partner, however...)

[thecinephale]

Best Movies of 2017

I’m so excited that many of the great films this year did so well at the box office and are such a big part of the awards conversation. I’m grateful that every year brings great works of cinema, but it’s even better when a bunch of people actually get to see them.

This is the first year I’m not counting miniseries. The lines are becoming too blurred between TV and film and also nobody needs me to say again how much I love Jane Campion and Top of the Lake: China Girl.

Still need to see: All the Money in the World, Berlin Syndrome, Graduation, Happy End, In the Fade, Loveless, Lovesong, Prevenge, Princess Cyd, Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, A Quiet Passion, Slack Bay, Staying Vertical, Thelma, Woodshock

If your favorite movie isn’t on this list maybe I didn’t see it because a sexual predator was involved or maybe it was just a really crowded year with a lot of really good movies!

Honorable Mentions: -Battle of the Sexes (dir. Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton) -The Beguiled (dir. Sofia Coppola) -Call Me By Your Name (dir. Luca Guadagnino) -Colossal (dir. Nacho Vigalondo) -Columbus (dir. Kogonada) -A Fantastic Woman (dir. Sebastian Lelio) -Good Time (dir. Josh and Benny Safdie) -Landline (dir. Gillian Robespierre) -Lemon (dir. Janicza Bravo) -Logan Lucky (dir. Steven Soderbergh) -Parisienne (dir. Danielle Arbid) -Phantom Thread (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson) -Wonder Woman (dir. Patty Jenkins)

15. Planetarium (dir. Rebecca Zlotowski)

The first two movies on this list got fairly bad reviews so take my opinions as you will. And I get why many struggled with this film. Not only is it dealing with a wide swath of issues, but it’s also doing so with a variety of different tools. It dabbles in the occult, but it’s not a horror movie. It’s a period piece, but feels of the present. It suggests romance, suggests betrayal, suggests familial tension, yet… But here’s what’s great. It’s gorgeous. With some of the best cinematography of the year (Georges Lechaptois), some of the best production design of the year (Katia Wyszkop), and easily the best costumes of the year (Anaïs Romand) it’s compulsively watchable. Combine that with Natalie Portman’s incredibly grounding performance and I was more than willing to go along with Zlotowski as she explored the history of images, the power of images, and the danger of images without committing to a conventional structure.

14. It’s Only the End of the World (dir. Xavier Dolan)

I don’t know how anyone could love Dolan’s other films and dislike this one. It’s such a perfect embodiment of Dolan’s career thus far. Dolan’s films are operatic because he understands that for individuals their problems are operatic. Pretty much every family has conflict, disagreements, scars, but that can’t be dismissed so easily when they are OUR conflicts, OUR disagreements, OUR scars. I love how much respect Dolan always has for that truth. The cast is filled with French cinema royalty and they fully live up to the material’s grounded melodrama.

13. The Lure (dir. Agnieszka Smoczynska)

There’s one key reason this vampiric Polish horror-musical retelling of The Little Mermaid works in a way that other adaptations fall short. Sure, the sheer audacity of that genre mashup makes for a fascinating and unique viewing experience. But what ultimately makes it work emotionally and thematically is that it’s about two mermaids. This was always intended as the initial concept was a horror-less, mermaid-less musical about the Wrońska Sisters (who wrote all the songs in this). But still Smoczynska and her screenwriter Robert Bolesto really manage to keep all that’s wonderful about the source material while contextualizing its complexity. I’ve softened on the Disney version over the years, but it still can be painful watching Ariel change herself for a man (especially when one of those changes is not speaking). Here the presence of her sister, sometimes judging, always worried, creates a circumstance that allows this film’s “little mermaid” to make the realistic mistakes of a teen girl in love with a boy and in hate with herself, without the filming giving its seal of approval. There’s no judgment one way or the other. It’s just real. All that aside this is a vampiric Polish horror-musical retelling of The Little Mermaid. Like, come on. Go buy the Criterion edition!!

12. The Rehearsal (dir. Alison Maclean)

This is the only film on this list that isn’t available to watch. I was lucky enough to see it at the New York Film Festival two years ago, then it had a one week run at Metrograph, then nothing. The real shame is that this isn’t some avant-garde headscratcher to be watched in university classrooms and backroom Brooklyn bars. This is a deeply humanistic, very accessible movie that almost demands wide conversation. And given its setting at an acting conservatory I especially wish all the actors in my life could watch it. Well, hopefully it pops up on some streaming site someday. But until then check out this early Alison Maclean short film that’s equally wonderful albeit wildly different in tone (this one is more like feminist Eraserhead): Kitchen Sink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt58gDgxy9Q&t=1s).

11. Novitiate (dir. Margaret Betts)

The history of cinema is a history of queer subtext. But it’s 2017 and while it may be fun to speculate whether Poe Dameron is gay and I’d be the first to say “Let It Go” is a perfect coming out anthem, it’s no coincidence that the best queer allegories of the year ALSO had explicitly queer characters. This film in particular is so special because it’s both the story of a young woman’s repressed sexuality and a story about how faith of all things is comparable to said sexuality. Sister Cathleen’s mother does not understand her affinity for Jesus the way many parents do not understand their children’s sexuality or gender. While coming out stories are a staple of very special sitcom episodes, I’ve never seen one that captures the pained misunderstanding the way this film does. Part of this is due to wonderful performances by Julianne Nicholson and Margaret Qualley and part of it is that religion is oddly the perfect stand-in for queerness… even as it represses queerness within this world. The movie begins with a series of flashbacks that feel stilted and conventional in a way that’s totally incongruous with the rest of the movie. It’s unfortunate because otherwise this would’ve been even higher on my list. But this is Betts’ first film and the majority of it is really special. And while I do think she’ll make even better films in what will hopefully be a long career, this one is still really worth checking out. I mean, I haven’t even brought up Melissa Leo’s frightening and absurd (yet somehow grounded?) performance that makes Meryl Streep in Doubt look like Amy Adams in Doubt.

10. The Florida Project (dir. Sean Baker)

As marketing extraordinaire A24 has managed to spread this film to a wider audience, they’ve made a lot of fuss about this film’s political depiction of Florida’s “hidden homeless,” Baker’s approach of mixing professional and non-professional actors (shout-out to Bria Vinaite who deserves as much awards attention as Willem Dafoe), and how the film ��feels like a documentary.” And while I’m glad this strategy has worked, I tend to balk at the tendency of marketers and critics alike to call any movie with characters who aren’t all rich and/or white “like a documentary.” But regardless of its realism which I feel in no position to comment on, it’s certainly a great film about childhood and fantasy and how sometimes it’s easier to be a parent to everyone except your own kids. And not to build it up too much if you haven’t already seen it, but the ending is truly one of the best endings in recent years, not only in and of itself, but how it contextualizes and deepens everything that came before.

9. Whose Streets? (dir. Sabaah Folayan)

This is an exceptionally well-constructed film. I feel like most documentaries in this style have great moments but show a lack of restraint in the editing room and/or struggle to find a clear narrative. But this film moves along at an exceptional pace while still feeling comprehensive. Every sequence feels essential even when the scope expands beyond the two central individuals. This can be credited in part to the editing, but the succinctness wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for the footage captured. The intimate moments we’re able to watch are stunning and enhance the already high stakes of the surrounding film, the ongoing narrative of the country. This is an essential reminder of the humanity behind activism, the sacrifice behind news stories, and that for many people political engagement is not something to do with an open Sunday afternoon but a necessary part of survival.

8. Their Finest (dir. Lone Scherfig)

Easily the best Dunkirk-related film of the year, this is the rare movie about movies that doesn’t feel self-satisfied, but instead truly captures the joy of cinema and storytelling. It’s odd to me that romantic melodrama, a genre so celebrated when it comes to classic film, is often written off as fluff in contemporary cinema. Yes, this movie is romantic. Yes, this movie is wildly entertaining. But it’s also painful, it’s also telling a story of women screenwriters we haven’t heard before, it’s also showing how powerful art can be as an escape and a mirror in difficult times. If you’re interested in filmmaking and/or British people, check this out on Hulu. Gemma Arterton is really wonderful and Sam Claflin is good eye candy if you’re into that sort of thing.

7. Starless Dreams (dir. Mehrdad Oskouei)

This documentary about a group of teenage girls living in an Iranian “Correctional and Rehabilitation Center” is proof that sometimes the best approach to the medium is simplicity. Oskouei pretty much just lets the girls talk. But it’s truly a testament to his abilities as a filmmaker (and person) and the girls’ vulnerability and storytelling prowess that the movie remains compelling throughout. As the girls tell their stories it becomes clear that the center isn’t simply a prison, but also almost a utopic escape from the daily horrors they faced outside. Both options are so completely insufficient when compared to the lives these young women deserve this realization is enraging. And while the film takes place in Iran it doesn’t require a lot of effort to realize young women have similar stories and circumstances all over the world. This movie is on iTunes and I really, really recommend checking it out. The subject matter is heavy, but because the girls are allowed to determine the narrative it never feels maudlin or unbearable and at times is even quite funny and joyous.

6. Raw (dir. Julia Ducournau)

I really appreciated how Marielle Heller’s The Diary of a Teenage Girl captured the all-consuming lust of teenagehood. So, um, think that movie, except cannibalism. A lot of cannibalism. I feel torn between being honest about how truly gross this movie can be and pretending otherwise because I really don’t want to scare anyone away. I’ll put it this way. It’s really, really worth it to watch this through your fingers if you even maybe think you could handle it. Because it’s just a really great movie about being a teenage girl, discovering sexuality, being away from home for the first time, having a sister, having a first crush, a first sexual experience, feeling completely out of control of your desires and needs. Hey, even Ducournau insists this isn’t a horror movie. So don’t eat anything beforehand, but definitely check this out.

5. Get Out (dir. Jordan Peele)

I hardly need to add any analysis to what has easily been the most talked about and written about movie of the year. But I just need to say that it makes me so happy that a socially aware horror movie (the best subset of my favorite genre) not only made a huge amount of money but is also considered an awards frontrunner. That is so wonderfully baffling to me and a testament to the greatness of this movie. Many great horror movies capitalize on people’s fear of otherness, but those who are othered in our society are much more likely to be victims than villains. That Peele managed to show this without ever feeling like he was exploiting real pain is truly an accomplishment. The tonal balance this film achieves is certainly something I’ll study when I make a horror movie writing back to Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, Sleepaway Camp, etc.

4. Faces Places (dir. Agnès Varda, JR)

Agnès Varda has spent her entire career blending fact and fiction, opening up her own life for her art. But there’s something different about this film which is likely to be her last. While so much of her work places her vivacious spirit front and center this film feels almost like a cry of humanity. Oddly enough I’d compare it to Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky in that it seems to say, “Don’t fetishize my happiness, don’t mock my joy, don’t infantilize me, just because you can’t enjoy life like I can.” I look to Varda as the kind of artist (and person) I want to be in how open she always seems to be. But what this film made me realize is that part of that openness is how sad she can be, how angry she can be. Varda is often called “the grandmother of the French New Wave.” I guess this is the only way the film community knows how to contextualize a woman being the one to start arguably the most influential film movement. Varda is the same age as all those guys! She’s not the grandmother! She just happened to make a bold, experimental film about five years ahead of the rest of them. By ending with Godard, and pairing up with JR who is basically an incarnation of Godard and friends as young men, Varda is really exploring her place in film history and the world, and how difficult it is to be to be a pioneer. No country has more contemporary films directed by women than France and this is in a large part due to Varda. But being the one to create that path is exhausting. I realize I’m making what’s easily the most life-affirming, humanist film of the year sound like an angry, self-eulogy, but I think this aspect of the film and Varda’s career should not be ignored. If you’ve never seen anything by Varda, this film will read very differently, but still be wonderful (and honestly more joyous). I recommend seeing it, watching 20 of her other films, and then seeing it again.

3. The Shape of Water (dir. Guillermo del Toro)

The trailer for this film shows the main character, Elisa played by the always wonderful Sally Hawkins, doing her daily routine. Alarm, shining shoes, being late to work, etc. But even the redband trailer leaves out one of her daily activities: masturbating. Maybe it’s odd to associate masturbation with ambition, but the choice to show that early on and then repeatedly seems like a perfect microcosm of why this film is so great. It’s not afraid. Guillermo del Toro has made a wonderful career out of celebrating “the other” through monster movie pastiches, but this to me is his very best film because of how willing it is to be both clear and complicated. This movie is many things, but one of those things is a queer love story. And even though human woman/amphibian man sex is maybe even more taboo to show on screen than say eating a semen filled peach, this movie just goes for it. I’m not sure if this movie succeeds in everything it tries to do but I so deeply admire how much it tries. Not only is one of Elisa’s best friends gay, but we spend a significant amount of time getting to know that character and see that maybe his obsolete career hurts him even more. Not only is Elisa’s other best friend black, but we see how being a black woman affects her specifically in what is expected of her versus her husband. Fantasy and sci-fi often use real people’s struggles as source material for privileged protagonists, and while this film certainly does that, it works because the real people are still shown on screen. Also del Toro is a master of cinematic craft so this is really a pleasure to watch.

2. Lady Bird (dir. Greta Gerwig)

Before diving into this specific film it’s worth noting that this is one of six debut features on this list. It’s so exciting that we’re hopefully going to get full and illustrious careers from all of these people. But when it comes to Gerwig it feels like we already have. She has been proof that if the film community is going to insist on holding onto the auteur theory, they at least need to acknowledge that actors and writers can be auteurs. Gerwig is known for being quirky, but this really sells her talent short. She is clearly someone who has a deep understanding of cinema and, more importantly, a deep understanding of people. Part of being a great director is casting great actors and then trusting them and it’s so clear that’s what happened on this film (let me just list off some names: Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Lucas Hedges, Tracy Letts, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Lois Smith, I mean come on). They really make her wonderful script come alive. This is a great movie about female friendship and a great movie about mother-daughter relationships, but more than anything it’s a great movie about loving and hating a hometown. Even though I’ve only seen the film twice I think back on moments in the film like I do my own adolescent memories. They feel familiar even when I don’t directly relate to them. This movie feels big in a way only a small movie can.

1. Mudbound (dir. Dee Rees)

This is when my penchant for hyperbole really comes back to bite me in the ass. I use the word masterpiece way too much. But when I say Mudbound is a masterpiece I don’t just mean it’s a great movie I really loved that I recommend everyone see. I mean, it’s The Godfather. It’s Citizen Kane. It’s the rare movie that has a perfect script, perfect cinematography, perfect performances, is completely of its time, and will stand the test of time. If we ever get to a place where art by black women is justly celebrated it will be in the 2070 AFI top 10. It’s that good. Part of what sets the movie apart is its almost absurd ambition. It breaks so many movie rules (not only does it have heavy narration, but it has heavy narration from multiple characters), and yet it always works. I love small movies, I love weird and flawed movies, but there is something so spectacular about watching something like Dee Rees’ third feature. I’m so excited to watch this movie again, to study it, to spend a lifetime with it. I feel like it really got lost in the shuffle by being released on Netflix, but that also means right now it’s on Netflix and you, yes YOU, almost certainly have or have access to Netflix. So you could watch it. Right now. Watch it. Stop reading. Turn the lights off. Find the biggest TV or computer screen you have so you can really appreciate Rachel Morrison’s cinematography and watch it. It is perfection wrapped in a bow of perfection and I really must insist you watch it.

Television!

Still Need to Catch Up On: The Girlfriend Experience (S2), Queen Sugar (S2)

Honorable Mentions: -Big Little Lies -Broad City (S3) -Girls (S6) -Insecure (S2) -Master of None (S2) -One Mississippi (S2) -Orange is the New Black (S5) -Search Party (S2) -Shots Fired

10. Twin Peaks: The Return 9. Jane the Virgin (S3/4) 8. Transparent (S4) 7. Better Things (S2) 6. I Love Dick 5. The Good Place (S1/2) 4. Sense8 (S2) 3. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (S2/3) 2. Top of the Lake: China Girl 1. The Leftovers (S3)