#it's a flawed problematic classic that is not so much a romantic movie as a sociological study of romance | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 6 years

Text

A Look Back on the Twilight Saga

I have never felt older than I have this year, in which the film adaptation of the first book in the Twilight Saga turns ten. Ten years ago, that movie came out, three years after the book. And what a book and movie they were! They inspired so much rabid devotion and equally rabid pushback, with people gushing over the beautiful romance in equal amounts as people saying how the books were offensively awful and filled with misogyny and romanticization of abusive relationships. Golly, I sure am glad discussion of fiction has improved since then and we don’t have dumb arguments like that anymore!

All joking aside, it is pretty interesting to look back on the series. With the passage of time, and the release of so much young adult fiction in cinemas between then and now, I have to say that looking back… Twilight is a pretty good film and, for the most part, a pretty good series.

Now, such a bold statement could never have been made in that period during the heyday of the series, where the popularity of the series was slowly souring and people began openly rejecting the series as trash. But I feel that rejection was just part of an obnoxious cycle I’ve seen a lot in recent years, where anything remotely popular with audiences (such as Frozen) becomes hated at the peak of its popularity, seemingly because of the sole fact that it is popular and not really due to anything having to do with the actual overall quality.

See, here’s the thing: despite the series having a reputation for being poorly written tripe, it really is a lot better than anyone gives it credit for. Now, I’m not going to say the writing is on par with other young adult fantasy series of the time, like Harry Potter or Percy Jackson, because that is just patently untrue. What the Twilight Saga was, and what it always seemed to aim for, was the level of quality of a tacky airport romance novel you pick up while waiting for your flight to kill time. It’s nothing but wish-fulfillment fantasy in which an unhappy young woman becomes the reason for living for several unfathomably hot supernatural men, a sentiment that quite frankly resonates with the modern atmosphere towards supernatural romance and the prominence of self-proclaimed “Monsterfuckers.” Bella’s situation is pretty much a dream come true, is it not? Among tacky supernatural romance novels, Twilight and its sequels are easily the queens of the genre.

Here’s the thing that really sets the Twilight Saga apart, though: there is actually a serious amount of thought and care put into nearly all aspects of the romance’s universe save for the actual romance. Every single member of the Cullen family has a fascinating backstory: Carlisle was a vampire hunter turned vampire who proceeded to venture across the world in the ensuing hundreds of years building up a family and practicing a different way of living; Alice was committed to an asylum and has a past shrouded in mystery; Jasper was a soldier in the Confederate army who was turned into a vampire and tasked with raising a vampire army; Rosalie’s backstory is Kill Bill, BUT WITH VAMPIRES!; and Emmet, while easily the least impressive of them all, still died apparently fighting a bear, and considering how he is one can only imagine what on earth he was doing. Esme is the only Cullen without a deeply fascinating backstory, but even what little we do get is a bit tragic: she lost her child and so committed suicide, or attempted it anyway. There’s absolutely no need for all of these rich, complex backstories for characters in a throwaway romance novel, and yet here they are. And that’s not all.

The rest of the world and overall vampire society is presented in a very interesting way. The Volturi in particular are a fascinating idea, a secret cabal of vampires who rule over all other vampires with an iron fist, but one that is, while a bit tyrannical and unforgiving, seemingly necessary to preserve the existence of vampire society. Hell, their rules don’t really seem TOO harsh, and they only really spring to action when there are vampires fragrantly and blatantly exposing themselves to human society. They wish to keep the vampire world hidden in the shadows, where they can feed in peace away from prying eyes. Their position is understandable in a lot of ways. They also have a very interesting history to them, having apparently wrestled power over vampirekind away from a sect of Romanian vampires. Now, I did say they are a fascinating IDEA; in execution, they always tended to be a bit… useless. Their appearances in New Moon and Breaking Dawn are ultimately wastes of time, as they are never really opposed in any sort of meaningful way and get away in the end with the status quo wholly unchanged. No impact is ever made on vampirekind when they’re involved, which almost makes me wish that they were kept in the shadows and used far more sparingly. Their influence over events in Eclipse, where they only send out their powerful agents, showcases that Stephanie Meyers could use them very effectively when she wanted to.

The werewolves are a bit less effective. While they do have an intriguing backstory, there is something a bit… problematic about shoehorning a bunch of fictional elements onto the real Quileute tribe. On the other hand though, a positive and heroic portrayal of Native Americans in fiction is never a bad thing, and Jacob Black is easily one of the more sympathetic characters until halfway through Breaking Dawn. It’s a very tricky, mixed bag. I kind of wish that the issue with the handling of Native American folklore was the biggest controversy with the series, but there’s actually one far worse and even stupider.

The Twilight Saga has come under fire for being a negative influence on young women, for romanticizing abusive relationships and stalking, and for being some sort of massive insult to feminism. Now, these arguments aren’t wholly without merit, but the issue is that they are being filtered through human understanding and imposed on fictional creatures in a fictional universe. If a real-life human acted as clingy, impulsive, over-protective, and obsessed as Edward is towards Bella, yes, it would be absolutely terrifying. Here’s where I let you in on a little secret, though: Edward Cullen is, in fact, not a human. He is part of a race of ageless semi-undead beings who live off of blood and glitter in the sunlight. He immediately sees his soulmate in Bella and goes out of his way to ensure they end up together, acting on the instincts granted to members of his kind. Trying to fit all of his actions into a human narrative is as fruitless as if an ant tried to explain humanity to his colleagues filtered through his ant experiences. The fact is, Edward operates on a far different moral code than humans. This is not uncommon for vampires in any fiction; Marceline of Adventure Time fame is a vampire who is certainly not above doing some rather sketchy stuff, for example. While Edward’s actions can come off as bizarre and creepy to humans, for a vampire, Edward is actually downright romantic and even benevolent. One also needs to take into account that Edward is a kissless virgin who has spent a hundred years doing nothing but reading romance novels and listening to classical music, which would go a long way to explain his awkward and sometimes offputting ways of trying to replicate human courtship rituals with Bella.

The criticisms leveled at Bella are rather unfair as well; while she often finds herself a damsel in distress, it rarely is something she doesn’t want. When Bella is in danger, it’s because she wanted to be there and put herself there. Yes, she does get into trouble, but that’s mostly due to her being a stupid horny teenage girl with zero impulse control. Recall New Moon, where she constantly did dangerous stunts so she could have hallucinations of Edward chastise her. Bella is, quite frankly, an adrenaline junkie, and I feel she’d rather resent being called a damsel. Even the times when she is in danger, it is no real fault of her own, but rather the fact she is a normal human out of her depth in a supernatural world. Bella is not Blade, she is not Van Helsing, she is not Alucard; she is Bella Swan, normal teenage girl, and she tends to be as effective as your average teenage girl in situations where superpowered monsters are hunting her. Imagine if we applied these sorts of criticisms to other characters in fiction… “John Conner in Terminator 2 is such a worthless damsel in distress character, why does he not just fight off the T-1000?” or how about “Why do the kids in The Goonies not take the Fratellis head-on? Why do they constantly flee from them when they cross paths? And Chunk, getting captured by them, what a pathetic damsel moment.” People not being successful in areas where they are out of their element is not some horribly evil thing. I also resent the idea the series is some horrible, anti-feminist work, particularly because the entire series revolves around Bella’s choice, and when she is not given agency she goes out of her way to take that agency. For all the flaws of Breaking Dawn, and there are many, I will give it this: presenting Bella as being in the right for wanting her choices respected is a good thing. With that in mind, I think the entire series is a lot more feminist than many are willing to admit.

And look, I’m not saying this book is a flawless masterpiece or anything like that. I have mentioned this is definitely a book more impressive for the world it creates than for the actual romance it centers around. But I do feel that, generally speaking, the books never descended to the point many who criticized the books say they did. I say “for the most part” because I cannot even muster up enough good will to say a single good thing about Breaking Dawn. But generally, the writing quality is decent. Even some of the twists on vampire lore are interesting and refreshing.

For instance… the sparkling. This is one of the most infamous additions to the lore of vampires in Meyers stories. When in the sunlight, rather than bursting into flames as vampires tend to do in fiction, their skin sparkles and glitters as if it was encrusted with diamonds. It does sound silly, and it really is, especially when they show it off in the movies… and yet, it is actually far more accurate than just about every depiction of vampires in nearly 100 years. You see, the idea vampires are killed by sunlight is actually a relatively new addition to vampire lore, being created for the famous silent masterpiece Nosferatu because they couldn’t come up with any other way to kill the vampire. In the original novel of Dracula, for instance, the titular count strut about during the day with no ill effect. So, by accident or perhaps by some better understanding of the creatures than most writers, Meyers was more accurate than nearly all contemporary portrayals of the characters. Also interesting – but not nearly so to the point I feel the need to dedicate a whole new paragraph to it – the idea of vampires having a sort of “love at first sight” thing that allows them to discern their soulmate was copied by Hotel Transylvania, so I feel like that addition to vampire lore has its merit as well.

The film adaptations tend to not truly fix the flaws with the storytelling, but instead to paint over them with some truly inspired silliness. The utter apathy Robert Pattinson exudes for his role as Edward Cullen is palpable in how he acts, and it tends to make Edward’s creepier actions actually less threatening than the were in the books – and I’d argue there he wasn’t particularly threathening, despite his angsting. Taylor Lautner’s oft-shirtless portrayal of Jacob Black seems a lot more genuinely, but equally cheesy; his and Pattinson’s onscreen chemistry really gives them the feel of two romantic rivals, which makes it easy to see exactly why there was such a devoted following rooting for one or the other back in the day. Then we get to Bella.

As usual, Bella is a horribly misunderstood character here. It’s easy to blame the books for how one-note Bella appears in the movies – as a romance protagonist, Bella has enough personality for you to care while still being enough of a blank slate that you can put yourself in her position so that you can fantasize about the outcomes – but I almost feel like her portrayal was a deliberate choice. Kristen Stewart is actually a very good actor when in the right role, and I feel like even in the past I’ve been too hard on her portrayal of Bella. I think I might go so far as to say her version of Bella is better than the book, because Stewart actually does inject some vapid, awkward teenage girlishness to the role. That’s something wonderful, especially about the films – the teenagers, more than a lot of other series, tend to feel like real people. They say the dumbest stuff imaginable, but really, is that not what being a teenager is? Everyone was a stupid, vapid idiot as a teenager, it’s just how teens are. So all t hat combined with everything else that has been said, does any part of Bella’s characterization truly feel THAT abnormal for an otherwise normal, brooding teen thrust headfirst into the world of the supernatural? I personally don’t think so; Bella is actually one of the most real characters of the series, an anchor to humanity in a sea of supernatural strangeness, a character that is absolutely perfect in her dull, flawed, overly-romantic personality. She may not be the strongest, or most interesting, or even the most pleasant character in all of fiction… but she has an air of realness to her few other characters can hope to achieve. Perhaps this is why a lot of people rejected and mocked her; it’s so much easier to dismiss and belittle something than accept that it is something real, warts and all. No one wanted to accept the less pleasant parts of Bella, and so she was rejected by all except the fans of the book; meanwhile, seemingly disinterested goth girls would be fought over by two equally strange men for her affection, all while she talks in a sort of half-awake near-monotone.

I was in that situation myself. It’s all real teenage bullshit.

I feel like this more than anything explains why the Twilight Saga ended up being violently rejected by so many people: too many people saw through the supernatural elements and into the real life teenage angst and did not like what they saw, as it reflected their own experiences. It’s so bizarre to say, but Stephanie Meyers may have been too real for her own good, and her portrayal of angst-ridden teen love triangles may have been just too close to home for a lot of people. I’m sure a lot of older people had negative experiences in high school as I did, so anything that reminds them of those stupid, painful years is not going to seem pleasant. With other stories that feature realistic elements with supernatural settings, such as Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and so on, they never really faced this kind of scrutiny and rejection as while they also are grounded with realistic portrayals of their teenagers, they also take place in overtly supernatural settings; there is no place where an experience could be like that of Hogwarts or Camp Half-Blood. But there’s probably of plenty of places like the dismal, dreary town of Forks, Washington, a perpetually cloudy town out in the sticks where nothing ever seems to happen. Reading about teen angst in such an agonizingly depressing setting will not go over well with anyone who has had negative experiences in regards to the elements portrayed, supernatural dressing or no.

Looking back at the Twilight Saga, after years of imitators of varying quality and numerous attempts by mediocre young adult franchises to capture this saga’s lightning in a bottle, the stories sans Breaking Dawn seem to have aged quite well, and hold up a lot better. Removed from the rabid fandom, overwhelming hype, ad constant mockery, the series stands as a solid and kind of cheesy young adult romance series, one with superb worldbuilding that I have yet to see any young adult series after it match and an absolutely fantastic ensemble cast that is just rife with fanfiction potential. I find that even the lead trio, be it in the films and in the movie, have a lot more layer and depth to them than initially thought, with Bella in particular a character I feel deserves some serious reevaluation. And while I’d never call the series a masterpiece to rival Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, or Lord of the Rings, I do think that the series is good enough to unironically be enjoyed. While there is of course plenty to snark at here – it’s a story featuring a rather honest depiction of teenagers, after all, and teenagers are idiots – I think there is a lot more to like than the insane hatedom of the book ever gave it credit for.

And even if you can’t bring yourself to admit the series is genuinely good (albeit cheesy), there’s no denying that it had a pretty good impact on popular culture. Aside from being the basis for Vampire Sucks, which has the honor of being the only genuinely good Seltzer and Friedberg film, it put supernatural romance stories back into the mainstream again. The biggest example of a supernatural romance film that I can see got a lot of mainstream recognition was 1990’s Ghost, which is held up as a romantic classic; while there were plenty of supernatural romance films between then and Twilight, none of them seem to be recalled fondly or even at all, and none of them can even come close to saying they had the sort of cultural impact Ghost did. Twilight, though… it had a huge impact. Without Twilight, we probably wouldn’t have gotten Warm Bodies, we probably wouldn’t have gotten Horns, and honestly? We probably wouldn’t have gotten The Shape of Water, or more realistically, the movie would not nearly be as accepted. Twilight for better or worse conditioned us to see the humanity in supernatural entities and find attraction in them (not exactly a new idea as far as vampires go, I know, but it definitely put it in the minds of young adults). I can easily see the genesis of the modern crowd of people lusting after the Asset, Pennywise, Godzilla, and Venom being the Twilight Saga; it was a gateway drug that put in the minds of youths “Hey, monsters can be really sexy. Like, REALLY sexy.”

The Twilight Saga is truly a fascinating work, for better and for worse. There is a lot in it that I really admire, and there’s plenty in it that I resent, but even at its worst I can never say that the series was boring. For all the flack I give Breaking Dawn, it is still far more readable than any of the garbage Cormac McCarthy has ever shat out, and nothing in the series was as overtly misogynistic as some of the dialogue in Ready Player One. As cheesy as the film series got, the first was a surprisingly effective indie supernatural romance and the third was a gloriously Gothic cheesy delight, with the second being the awkward but still enjoyable middle film and Breaking Dawn: Part 1 being the only genuinely awful film in the series; nothing positive could be said for the slew of imitators that crawled in this film’s wake, such as Beastly, Red Riding Hood, and even some of the would-be successors to this franchise such as the cinematic adaptations of Percy Jackson, Divergent, and The Hunger Games among others, which despite them being based off of books of far greater critical acclaim had absolutely no respect for their source material the way the Twilight Saga films did. As silly as some of the acting in the movies was – and it got very silly, considering the lead three all seemed to actively despise their roles – none of their acting was as painfully bad to sit through as Jennifer Lawrence’s attempts at acting in the first Hunger Games film, or the entire cast of the Percy Jackson movies. I would never say that Twilight is the absolute pinnacle of young adult literature, but I think a lot of us had our judgment clouded back in the day, and with the benefit of hindsight I think it’s safe to say the franchise was a lot of fun; I’d even go as far to say that it is an underrated work of genius in many aspects.

Removed from the climate that created it and put into a world it helped shape, I think the tale of Bella Swan and her romance of the angsty immortal Edward Cullen resonates quite a bit better. So thank you to Stephanie Meyers and everyone involved with the film series, because without your work, the world we live in would probably be a much less interesting place, with far fewer people horny for monsters. I really don’t think I would want to live in that world.

#CineMike #essay #my writing #Twilight #The Twilight Saga #Eclipse #New Moon #Breaking Dawn #Edward Cullen #Bella Swan #Jacob Black #Robert Pattinson #Kristen Stewart #Taylor Lautner

34 notes · View notes

fapangel · 6 years

Note

So you finally watched The Last Jedi. Thoughts?

It is worse than I could have possibly imagined.Sit down and buckle up, because this one’s a doozy. (Spoilersabound.)

AsI’ve previously detailed, it was clear the movie was a trainwreckeven before I watched it due to simple structural issues with thebasic plot, much of it inherited from The Force Awakens (which I didsee.) To wit, the movie is a sequel to the original trilogy, butcompletely ignores everything that happenedin the original trilogy. Having seen The Last Jedi, it’s nowblatantly clear thatthe new trilogy was intended as a reboot - but that’s impossible todo when it’s shamelessly mining the OT for characters, concepts, andinformation. I’m not talking about the shameless density of nostalgiareferences and even aped plots in The Force Awakens, either - I’mtalking about The Last Jedi considered in a vacuum. (Just one exampleis Leia’s use of force power to pull herself back into her ship,which makes no sense without the original trilogy context.) Giventhe high praise some of my friends had paid the show, I’d been opento the possibility of it having merit as a movie, ifnot as a Star Wars sequel, butits inability toescape the structural/sequel critique presaged its complete and utterfailures in writing.

Thisis a point I must make explicit: TheLast Jedi is such a horribly written movie that it transcends merefailure; it is actively harmful and offensive, “problematic” inthe sense that the much-maligned “SJWs” use the term. Thisis the unassailable core of the offense that The Last Jedi (“TLJ”)offers. Much of what I’m about to bitch about, especially anythingto do with pre-established Star Wars canon, could have been glossedover, or even forgiven, if the core storytelling was solid enough. Ifit looks flashy and cool, adheres to rules that the audience knowsfrom prior films, oreven rules the film itself laid down earlier, anyaction sequence or detail of spaceships and tech can be made to work.Star Wars is classic Space Opera centered on Space Wizards; youcan get away with a lotifyou’re making one big concession to enable the plot and not justjerking the audience around every five minutes. But TLJ not only doesthat, it also has no story worth making concessions to enable. Theinescapably lethal flaw of TLJ is that none of the characters areworth a damn, and their arcs simply do not work.

That’sit. Without that, you have no story, period. Withthat,any number of flaws, errors, and plot holes might be forgiven, if thecore story is strong enough. Even if the core story isn’tstrongenough, one could at least acknowledge that the movie wasn’t a totaldisaster, it was just dragged down by too many errors, a death of athousand cuts. TLJ manages to have allof the ancillary problems, andno character story at all to make it worth a flying fuck.

Thiswon’t be a comprehensive dismantling of TLJ, as there’s more thanenough out there - I suggest seeing MauLer’sreviews, either the 30 minute “Unbridled Rage” or thethree-part,multi-hourtakedown for a truly exhaustive treatment. This is mostly Planefag’sPerspective (becuase people like it when I say the funny fuqq wordsapparently,) an explanation to my writer friends (which they’ll findinteresting, as it’s rare for our opinions on works of fiction todiverge so strongly), and presentation of what seems to be aheretofore unmade argument - that TLJ is morally reprehensible bydint of the biases, prejudices and twisted ideas it perpetuates.

Yes,it is that fuckingbad. ButI’m saving the best for last. In order of magnitude, why TLJ is apile of steaming, utter shit:

NOT ONE SINGLEFUCKING CHARACTER ARC WORKS AT ALL.

Thisis the core, unforgivable failing - the complete absence of anyfucking story. This isespecially notable with Rey and Kylo, the lead characters of themovie around which everything else revolves. WhenRey and Kylo first spoke to each other across lightyears, I stood upand shouted “THE FORCEIS NOT A FUCKING SKYPE CALL!” Iwould’ve forgiven the Space Wizard liberties had the interactionsworked, but my wrathproved sadly prescient, as Kylo and Rey’s every interactionthereafter seemed like two teenagers awkwardly flirting over Skype…except they had far lesschemistry than that. As I write this, I find it difficult to evenrecall what they fucking talked about- the first time was Kylo surprised it was happening and Rey callinghim an evil murdering prick (for good reason,) the second time sherang him up when he had his shirt off and he told her to “let go ofthe past, kill it if you must,” and the third time she told him shesensed conflict in him, they touched hands through The Force, and she“saw his future” through this, because Rey Is Very Good At TheForce.

Onthe basis of these three interactions, Reygoes from Kylo Ren’s sworn enemy to moist and thirsty for histhrobbing red lightsaber. I shit you fucking negative. Uponthese three brief conversations,the central character story of the entire movie rides- and they come nowhere close topulling it off. There’s so many reasons for this that it’s hard tosummarize them. Rey’s shown to be pining for her family again(despite having moved past this in her character arc in The ForceAwakens, but Rian Johnson can’t keep shit consistent in his ownmovie, much less thesame fucking trilogy.) She’s angry at Kylo for killing his father,Han, whom she was adopting as a father figure herself (their firstchat takes place after Luke asks after Han and Rey accuses Kylo ofit, so this is expressly brought forward into TLJ.) So when Kylo ripsinto Rey over her parents; pointing out that they were white trashthat sold her into servitude for drinking money and never cared abouther, before telling her to kill her past, he’sonly reminding her that he had something she never did and alwayswanted (a loving family,) and that he fucking murdered saidfamily. There’s no wayRey could empathize with Kylo over this.

Butwe’re supposed to ignore this, and believe that Rey now feels someempathy for Kylo because she 1. saw him with his shirt off and 2.touched his hand and Sensed The Good In Him Through The Force.

Whata load of complete and utter fucking horseshit.

Thereare other arcs, and they all fall flat on their fucking faces aswell. For starters, Luke.Luke’s arc, especially, cannotbe insulated from continuity criticisms because he’s the mainfucking character of the Original Trilogy, andTLJ leans heavily onthat lineage for its setup. The climax of Luke’s character arc wasachieving the seemingly impossible - redeeminghis father, Darth Vader, who had fallen to evil decades ago andcommitted untold numbers of atrocities. Andin TLJ, Luke actually contemplates CHOPPINGHIS OWN NEPHEW’S FUCKING HEAD OFF becausehe “sees darkness in him.” The man who’s crowning, definingachievement was redeeming his Father from the dark side isconsidering NEPOTICIDEbecause the kid mightfall.

Evenif you ignore that, why Luke’sinsists that“the Jedi should end” is never explained, as he never says itoutright and never finishes a single lesson with Rey which issupposed to teach her why.Why does he extrapolate hisfailure to mean the entire galaxy isbetter off without them? His interactions with Rey accomplishnothing; he basically tells her to fuck off for a while, decides to“teach her,” promptly tells her she’s supor haxx0rz powerful likeKylo, watches her master lightsaber-ing because she knows how toswing a metal quarterstaff, and is then told by Yoda himself thatthere’s nothing in the ancient Jedi tomes Rey needs, because she’s sofucking special she knows it all already. Yoda fucking torchesthe ancient temple-tree-library to make his point that Luke’s always“staring at the horizon instead of at what’s in front of him” andthat he needs to focus on the here and now; implicitly saying thatRey was right, and he shouldhump his ass out there to “face down the First Order with a lasersword”…

…but instead of doing that, he literally phonesit in from half a galaxy away with The Force, puttinghimself in (almost) no danger, but fucking dies anyways,meaning he died as he lived; agrouchy old coward who never did face down his own apprentice andanswer for his mistakes. Luke’sarc makes no fucking sense, achievesnothing, and goes fucking nowhere.

Finnand Rose was portrayed as a budding relationship, except there wasn’ta single fucking hint of it being romantic till she kissed him at theend of the show after a pat speech about “saving what we love.”In the beginning of the movieshe tazes Finn (yes, the black man got tazed) for trying to skip townin an escape pod, which she found personally offensive because hersister had just died in the opening battle to defend The Resistance.At the end of the movie, Finn is willing to sacrifice his life todefend that same Resistance, his character having actually grown -and Rose rams him off-course before he can do so, despitehaving tazed him earlier in the movie for dishonoring hersister’s sacrifice to defend the exact same cause. Atbest, this means shewas only truly concerned with her personal loss, which would make hera self-centered, selfish cunt, willing to sacrifice the lives of manyothers (and potentially the freedom of the entire Galaxy) for her ownemotional needs. But it’s not portrayed as a selfish decision - it’sportrayed as the right one,which taps into an entire larger problem of its own I’ll touch onlater. It’s the same problemthat’s entirely responsible for crippling Poe’s character arc. Finnand Rose were simply dealt the coup de grace by it, as theirpreceding scenes together were sparse; involving them coming up witha plan to save the rebel fleet (seconds after Rose had tazed him,bro, and had no reason to do a 180 and start trusting him without anexplanation that he never did give,) a monologue about how shitRose’s life was and How Capitalism Is Bad on the casino planet, and abrief “well we’re fucked and by extension THE ENTIRE GALAXY but westuck it to the man, how cool,” and Rose has a moment where shesets an animal free and says that was superior to making baddieshurt, setting up her closing line later.

Andthat’s it. That’s fucking it. Comparethis to Princess Leia in the original trilogy. Her response to aStormtrooper walking into her cell - someone who she has every reasonto assume is there to take her to a torture session (as she wasclearly shown being tortured some minutes earlier in the movie,) isto comment wryly on his height. Andseconds after breaking out of the jail cell, she’s shouting orders atpeople, spraying the air with energy from a stolen blaster rifle, andin fact leading themout of the immediate danger (“Someone’s got to get us out ofhere!”) And during this entire sequence herrepartee and rivalry with Han Solo is already being established, the“excuse me Princess” cranked to the max. The friction that beginstheir relationship is Han butting heads with her before witnessingthat she’s dangerous,composed, and competent in emergency and combat situations. Notonly is their relationship developed during actionsequences of real consequence, as well as down-time chats, but italso takes three entire moviesto build to a climax. Comparedto that writing, Rey jumping on Kylo’s dick after three Skype callsand Rose giving one rusty fuckabout Finn are egregiously bad.If you criticize the OT andthink TLJ is superior, you have a lot toanswer for, right there.

However,Finn himself had potential - if only because his character was theleast tampered with, so one could assume his character developmentfrom TFA was intact, and TLJ’s script hinted gently in support of itand never against it. He started TFA just wanting to run like abitch, and by the end had come to care, at least, about defendingRey. He was trying to hare off after Rey in the beginning of TLJ, andby the end had committed fully to a cause, the opposite cause of theone he’d abandoned at the opening of TFA. It’snever really covered why hegrows like this - at the very beginning he goes from wanting to legit to forming a plan with Rose to save the fleet instantly. He wastalking his way out of being shoved in the brig at the time, but henever takes a subsequent option to duck out; in the space of a fewseconds he’s committed himself to a dangerous recon mission that willend with infiltrating an enemy capital ship withapparently no qualms whatsoever. If this was ever covered indialogue, it was so brief I completely missed it - and this isprobably why his arc “worked” the best; it wasn’t the focus, so Ididn’t care much about how it happened… plus, by the end, Finn isthe only halfway relatable character at all, beating Rose by alandslide because we have awhole movie of development for him (TFA) as opposed to one briefboo-hoo monologue from Rose (oh and her sister died boohoo.) He’s nota fucking Mary Sue like Rey, he’s not entirely certain about his rolein things, and so at the end, when he makes the decision tosuicide-run the Very Big Gun, there’s actually some investment andaudience-character empathy there. Finn,alone, is the only character we can empathizewith.

Andthen fucking Rose putson a stellar display of Asian Driving Skills and robshim of his moment,because-

EVERYBODY WITHA PENIS IN THIS MOVIE IS ALWAYS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING ALWAYS,BECAUSE FUCK MEN

Thisis not an exaggeration. In my priorcomments I mentioned that just because everyone saidthis was the case didn’t mean Ibelieved it, because I’ve seen the CHUDs hurl the same complaints atobjectively excellent movies (the latest Mad Max, forinstance,) and that’s before theGamer/pol/Gate crowd made counter-bitching at the SJW bitching apastimefor casual amusement. I wasexpecting some token casting, some throwaway GRRL POWER lines, etc.

Instead,I got the most misandrist movie I have ever seen.

It’snot just a matter ofwriting every male character to be stupid and every female characterto be smart - the laws of probability themselves bendover backwards to make everything a woman does the right choice, andeverything a man does the wrong one… except even when the Universedoesn’t do that, theman gets his ass chewed out anyways for making the rightcall.

Butthat came later. My first exposure to the misandry came in the formof Admiral Holdo, a purple-haired, ballgown-clad fleet Admiral wholooked like she walked out of Tumblr SJW Central Casting. But despiteThe Internet having named this character as egregiously bad manytimes, nothing, nothing prepared me for the actualperformance.

LauraDern deliberately portrays Holdo as a venomous, imperiousbully.

Onehas to actually see the performance to appreciate howdeliberate and well-done it is. Laura Dern crosses her arms, doesn’tface the person she’s addressing, literally looks down her nose whenshe does, and even does that particular kind of sneer whereone bites their lower lip and looks at someone like they’re dogshit.Laura Dern’s delivery perfectly matches the scripted lines - sheresponds to a straightforward request for information from Daemon Poeby insulting him, then attacking him- “My plan? Like yourplan which destroyed all our bombers?” She then proceeds to attackhis manhood, calling him a stupid little gung-ho flyboy, and advisinghim to “stick to his post and follow my orders” with the exactsneering tone of someone saying “sit down and be a good littleboy.” The soft-spoken volume of the delivery just drives it home -it’s the “oh, honey” condescending shitpost meme made manifestand played entirely straight.

Theworst part of this performance is that Hold is supposed tobe an Admiral, a military officer. Poe eve drops a line about herbeing the hero of such and such battle to establish that she’ssupposedly respected and famous - and then she proceeds to shredthat impression by acting like anything but a militaryofficer. Captain Janeway on Star Trek: Voyager wasn’t verynice - in fact, she could be an outright rude asshole - but shealways sounded like a Captain when Kate Mulgrew delivered herlines. She didn’t deliberately humiliate or insult people by saying“sit down like a good little boy;” she’d say “I’m the Captain,get the fuck off my bridge before I brig your ass forinsubordination.” That’s how the military works; there is achain of command, and those who challenge it are reminded thatthey’re pissing on God’s leg, and God does not fuck around. Todeliberately portray Holdo as literal stereotype of a “nastywoman” suggests that Rian Johnson actually thinks this is what a“strong woman” should look like. And in fact, Laura Dern saidthis explicitly:

Speaking about her character’sstylish-yet-firm leadership, Dern told VanityFair: “[Rian is] saying something that’s been atrue challenge in feminism. Are we going to lead and be who we are aswomen in our femininity? Or are we going to dress up in a boy’sclothes to do the boy’s job? I think we’re waking up to what wewant feminism to look like.”

So apparently CaptainJaneway wasn’t a real woman, because women simply can’t beauthoritative and direct, and if they are, they’re just playing asthose toxic men. From the director’s point of view, a “strongwoman” is a viscous, venomous bully who replies to peoplerequesting information by insulting, mocking, humiliating andsneering at them instead of firmly asserting their lawful authorityand citing their own reputation for competence.

Rian Johnson bothdirected and wrote the movie, so in this one scene, everythinghe believes is coming out - the epitome of an entire plot ruledby the iron fist of misandrist horseshit. The scene itself isan example. The movie opens with the Resistance evacuating a planetas the First Order fleet (led by a massive dreadnought with an“autocannon”) closes in. Poe Dameron, the aforementioned “flyboy”attacks and destroys the dreadnought, against Leia’s orders, just asit is explicitly shown to be locking its Big Scary Gun ontoLeia’s command cruiser (there’s even a cut to Leia’s face toemphasize the point.) There’s nothing to suggest that Leia’s cruiserwould’ve gone to lightspeed before then if not for Poe’s attack;despite him landing in a hurry, we know X-Wings arehyperspace-capable themselves (within this movie, in fact, as we’reshown an X-Wing underwater on Luke’s island; presumably his ridethere,) and as a Captain and, apparently, the Resistance’s fieldcommander, Poe would know the rally point the Resistance isevacuating to.

The movie itselfshows that Poe saved the command cruiser, and with it, the entirecommand staff of the Resistance - and for this he is first demoted byLeia for disobeying orders, and then viciously insulted by Holdo whenhe simply asks her for information. When the First Order follow theResistance through hyperspace with some newly-invented trackingdevice, Kylo Ren and his fellow Spess Fighters zoom in and blow upthe cruiser’s launch bay with torpedo-like missiles… and are thenimmediately ordered to retreat because the capital ships “can’tcover them that far away.” This makes absolutely no fuckingsense, as in the battle scene immediately prior, Poe attackedthe dreadnought to take out its “surface cannons” to clear theway for the Resistance’s bomber ships to attack, and the captain ofsaid ship explicitly says that those guns can’t hit fightersand that they should have their own fighters out there - “fiveminutes ago,” no less, as if lampshading the plot convenientincompetence makes it okay. And since two torpedo-like missilesutterly destroy the command cruiser’s launch bay, you can surmise theFirst Order doesn’t require huge, plodding, and stupidly vulnerable“bombers” as the Resistance used to take out the dreadnought.Said dreadnought didn’t have any visible shield protection during thefirst battle; (especially obvious because we’re later shown capitalship fire hitting the shielding of the command cruiser with verydistinctive special effects,) and in fact the command cruiserexplicitly “focuses its shields aft” to fend off thepursuers capital-class weaponry, just to create the opening for Kyloto nuke the hangar bay (and blast Leia into space as well.) Thereis absolutely no fucking reason the First Order fighter-bomberscouldn’t have finished off the command cruiser right then and there,but we’re simply shown Kylo’swingmen being shot down (by what, we never see,) as he’s told “theycan’t cover him out there” as an excuse. The movieviolates its own rules just to take away Poe’s X-Wing and put Holdoin charge.

Andthis is just the fucking beginningof the Universe itselfbending over backwards to invalidate everythinganyone with a penisdoes. Poe is the one that authorizes Finn and Rose’s sidequest tofind a “master codebreaker” at the Gold Saucer (to sneak on thebad guy’s ship to disable their tracker so the fleet can escape,) buttheir plan fails because Fuck Anyone With A Penis. But that’s not theoffensive part. Earlier, Poe sees Holdo’s fueling the transports, andangrily points out that said transports will be sitting ducks for theenemy’s guns. He asks Holdo againfor a plan, and shefeeds him some fucking bullshit non-answer about “hope being aspark that lights a fire.” With the entireResistance Fleet nowdown to one cruiser (outof three starting ships), Poe intelligently determines that Holdo isfucking useless and stages a mutiny so he can see his own planthrough. Holdo defeats her captors by not getting shot the moment shetwitches and winning a point-blank firefight with much younger combattroops because fuck you. Nowback in command, she sees off Leia (just awake after her impromptuspace-walk) and on thetransports, Leia tells Poe that “Holdo knows the First Order won’tbe scanning for small ships like this.”

Yes.That’s the explanation. Poe Dameron - the fleet’s combat commanderand fighter pilot, someone who’s fucking job isto understand the capabilities of the ships in their fleet - didn’tknow this, but Admiral Holdo did because she has a vagina andtherefore is perfect. They’re boarding the transports to “slipaway” to another planet - visiblethrough the fucking window - andyet the First Order - WHOWATCHED THESE PEOPLE EVACUATE THE LAST PLANET ON THESE TRANSPORTS -“won’t know to lookfor small ships like these.”

Butwait - it gets worse. Finn and Rose’s mission failed, not becausethey were simply caught by security or because they were attemptingsomething that Ben Kenobi, an experienced Jedi knight had to give hislife to accomplish in Ep. 4 whenthe enemy was letting them go, butbecause a traitor betrayed them, who also, conveniently, tells thefirst order about the transports, so they’re revealed by a“decloaking scan” (which implies the transports have cloakingdevices; i.e. an inherent designed ability of the vessels, not just asmaller sensor signature inherent to their size, ergo something POEDEFINITELY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT.) TheFirst Order starts blasting transports out of the sky, and of coursethis is all Poe’s fault.

Andthen there’s the Robbing of Finn. Admiral Holdo kamikazes the commandcruiser into the First Order fleet with the hyperdrive (itself afucking massive, retarded plot hole to end all plot holes), thussacrificing herself to Save The Resistance. And yet when Finnattempts to do THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING not20 minutes later in the movie; a kamikaze self-sacrifice to save theentire Resistance, Rose rams into him to stop because “we shouldsave what we love instead of destroy what we hate.” This line isdelivered as the Big Gun blows up the base’s doors, thus sealing theResistance’s Fate… but wait! They all escape through a back doorbecause Rey shows up just in time to use her never-trained,never-practiced Force powers to clear a rockslide for them. Rose hadno way of knowing this would happen; meaning her ramming of Finn was,as far as she knew, condemning everyoneto death and her andFinn, at best, tocapture and execution by the First Order. But as usual, the Plotitself bends over backwards to make her choice the correct one, andFinns the wrong one.

Shortlyafter this, Poe “completes his character arc” by acting on whatLeia told him (“you have to run not fight sometimes”) andparroting that fucking arrogant bully bitch Holdo’s fortune-cookieAesop about sparks lighting fires, finally acknowledging the WisdomOf The Females, despite everychoice he made in this movie beingthe objectively correct ones, given the knowledge that he as acharacter possessed.

Andwe haven’t even talked about Rey yet.

Ohmy fucking god, Rey.

Reyis the biggest fucking Mary Sue I have ever seen. This,like every other blunt statement in this piece, is not anexaggeration, as much as it saddens me. Rey can fail at nothingshe attempts. Rey has towork for absolutely nothing she gains. Rey has as much raw power asKylo, at least (by Luke’s own judgment,)and she is moreskilled than he is at lightsaber fighting as evidenced by her savingKylo afew times during the throne room fight. This,despite having notraining in the weapon(which has no mass and can lop off her limbs easily, unlike the metalquarterstaff she’s experienced with) compared to Kylo, who trainedunder Luke himself foryears before moving on to whoever the fuck Snoke was supposed to be.Rey can just touch Kylo’shand and “see his future” isn’t all dark, when the much moreexperienced Luke did the same and only saw darkness. Rey can temptKylo to betray his master and move towards the light after threefucking awkward Skype calls. WhenLuke ignored his master and left in the middle of his training torescue his friends, he got his fucking ass kicked, his handcut off, and his lightsaber lost. WhenRey does the exact same thing, SHE BEATS LUKE MOTHERFUCKINGSKYWALKER IN A MELEE FIGHT, FLIES OFF INTO SPACE, AND SUCCEEDS ATTURNING EDGELORD MCSITHBOI AT LEAST HALFWAY AND SAVES THE ENTIRERESISTANCE BY LEVITATING A WHOLE FUCKING ROCKSLIDE WITH NO TRAINING,WHEN LUKE, WHO WAS ACTIVELY BEING TRAINED, STRUGGLED TO MERELY STACKONE ROCK ON ANOTHER AND COULDN’T HOIST AN X-WING THAT WEIGHED LESSTHAN THAT WHOLE ROCKSLIDE PUT TOGETHER.

Reyis a stupid boring nothing, who’s emotions and struggles I can’t finda single fuck to give about because she’s never in any realdanger, never has to work for anything she gets, and never developsas a person at all. I didn’t criticize her character arc because shenot only lacks one, she’s arguably not even a character at all -there’s seemingly no limit to her abilities, no flaws or pitfalls forher character, since everything she does turns out to be the rightcall (sound familiar?) and only the barest suggestion of whatpersonal goals she seeks (and those aren’t sold one fucking bit bythe story development.) For all effects and purposes Rey is a walkingavatar of the Plot itself, or as Rian seems to call it, The Force.

FuckRey and the bantha she rode in on.

THE PLOT IS THE MOSTNONSENSICAL, LAZY PILE OF FUCKING SHIT EVER PUT TO PAPER BY MORTALMAN

Muchof the plot’s problems originate from what I described above; thevery rules of the universe bending over backwards to serve RianJohnson’s twisted misandrist worldview. But they don’t stop there,by a fucking long shot.

Muchhate has been thrown at those “bombers” in the movie’s opening,but as I said before, TLJ cannot stand on its own even in relationto itself. Ignoring all of pre-existing Star Wars canon, eventhings belonging to the “new movies” like Rogue One, within TLJitself, fighter-bombers are shown delivering grievous damage to acapital ship when Kylo’s wingmen blow the shit out of Leia’s bridge,using torpedo-like missiles that can strike at a distance, launchedfrom fast, maneuverable craft. Said cruiser’s bridge was explicitlyunshielded at the time, since its shields were “focused aft” tofend off turbolaser fire - something that’s shown with distinctivespecial effects that were totally absent when Poe was blasting lasercannons off the First Order Dreadnought in the beginning (ergo, itwas unshielded for some reason.) So the movie itself has shownthat unshielded targets can get the shit blown out of them byfighter-bombers firing torpedoes and that the dreadnaught wasunshielded.

Ionly mention this because it really pissed me off personally, andbecause it showcases Rian Johnson’s dogshit sense of drama andaesthetics, as he had a hardon for “WWII bombers” and apparentlythought it’d make for a better, tenser combat scene than Y-Wingsweaving and dodging through AA fire and enemy fighters like VT-8making their courageous, doomed run at the Kido Butai atMidway. The actual plot itself doesn’t have “holes,” asthat implies an otherwise cohesive structure with missing bits. Theplot is 90% holes and 10% substance, a sieve trying to hold meaning.

Theentire movie’s plot is set up by a “low speed chase,” theResistance fleet fleeing from the First Order’s fleet at sublightvelocities, because the First Order is using a “hyperspace tracker”that’ll allow them to chase the Resistance at FTL anyways. TheResistance’s cruisers are faster, which allows them to pull out oflethal range of their enemies, but - as a First Order officer says -“they’re faster and lighter but they can’t get away from us.”

Thismakes no fucking sense. If they’re faster - even by a smidgen -they’re faster. If they can pull out of laser cannon range tostart with, they can keep pulling out of range. They mightsimply maintain range once clear, to save fuel (because ships needfuel and they’re low, of course - something never, ever mentionedbefore in any Star Wars film ever,) but this makes no sense when youconsider that the objective of Admiral Holdo (which she won’t tell tofucking anyone) is to reach a planet with an old Rebel base with atransmitter powerful enough to “contact our allies in the Outer Rimand call for help.” In which case it’d make sense to haul ass forsaid planet, so they have some time to call for help and wait for itsarrival without the First Order launching a ground assault almost assoon as they land, right?

Butwait! Rey delivers herself to the First Order’s flagship via zippingin from Hyperspace with the Millennium Falcon, very close - beggingthe question of why the First Order (apparently not low on fuel)can’t use Hyperspace themselves to zip ahead of the Resistance fleet(even if they’ve got to bounce to a neighboring system due tominimum-range reasons) and cut them off, or just do a direct jump tocatch up. Worse, Finn and Rey take a hyperspace-capable shuttle toCasino World to execute their convoluted plan, which begs thequestion - why didn’t Holdo order an engineering team onto theshuttle and send it ahead to the old Rebel base? HOW MANY FUCKINGPEOPLE DOES IT TAKE TO WARM UP A REACTOR, BLOW THE DUST OFF A CONSOLEAND PLACE A FUCKING COLLECT CALL?

Thesecomplete failures of intellect - yes, even the infinitely stupidhyperspace kamikaze thing - all have one thing in common: they orientaround plans and facts that aren’t revealed to us till the lastminute, so we won’t notice these problems. It’s also because RianJohnson only cared about “subverting expectations” and provingthat his super special women were so clever and right all along, sohe clearly pulled plot elements out of his ass as he deemed themconvenient.

Ifyou’re one of my Twitter followers who usually tunes in for my vagueranting about defense-related matters, some necessary context isneeded: I’ve written literally thousands of pages worth of “quest”fiction; where I write anywhere from a few paragraphs to a few pagesof fiction, then have my audience vote on what the main characterdoes next - and the content itself is anime fanfiction. And Iam dead serious when I say that, at my worst, when Iwas pulling shit out of my ass on the spot, writing almost inreal-time and posting updates without stopping to proofread or editat all, I never did anything this fucking lazy. At myworst - writing that was so awful I wouldn’t wipe Assad’sass with it - I put more effort into my plot and consistency thanRian Johnson did with his titanic budget and multi-billion dollarstewardship of a beloved brand and franchise.

Andthat’s why I don’t find the hyperspace kamikaze moment offensive onits own merits. It’s horrific, yes - it invalidates space combat inthe entire setting, as well as begging questions specific to themovie (why didn’t Holdo use it outright, for instance?) but thesearen’t any worse than the numerous other stupidities that belabor theplot. What makes the hyperspace thing stand out to me is the attemptto excuse it - two throwaway exchanges. A First Order bridgeofficer notes that Holdo’s cruiser is spinning up its FTL drive, andthe commander dismisses it as an attempted diversion to lead themaway from the transports they’re potting like ducks. This isapparently the excuse for why Holdo didn’t do it earlier - she neededa distraction to allow time to turn. Nevermind that the other twoships with them - that ran out of fuel and were destroyed, afterevacuating their crew to the command cruiser - could’ve providedthis option hours earlier. The two lines make it clear that RianJohnson was aware of this plot hole, and he tries to paper it overwith two brief dialogue lines, as if that’ll excuse everything.

Theentire fucking movie is riddled with lines like this; barebreaths that have to carry the entire movie’s fucking plot setup. Reymentions to Luke that the First Order will “control all the majorsystems within weeks” at the beginning. The Order officer’s singleline that explains the Low Speed Chase the entire movie revolvesaround. Leia’s offhand mention of the old base with the Transmitterof Sufficient Power to reach Their Allies In The Outer Rim. Etc. TLCis demonstrably lacking “downtime” as a movie - think Luke, Hanand Leia chatting in the base on Hoth (“laugh it up, furball,”)the briefing in Episode 4 laying out the Death Star attack, etc.Fiction writing calls it pacing, and scriptwriting calls this “storybeats;” you need the right tempo of fast and slow to properly pacea movie. TLJ never slows down long enough to fucking explainitself, compared to the earlier movies - and the OT didn’t domuch of that to begin with! But it did more than enough to ground theentire story in a larger framework of what the situation was, andwhy the character’s actions mattered. We don’t get that in TLJ.Even the fucking opening scroll narration is inferior in termsof information density. It’s almost like there isn’t a plotworth a damn, just whatever horseshit excuse Rian Johnson squeezesout of his anus next, and if the movie stops cramming glossy CGI andaction figure product placement down your throat for five fuckingseconds, you’ll probably catch on.

Thekorn kernel atop this turd sundae was the ending - with the entirefucking Resistance reduced to maybe a dozen or so personnel - andnone of the command staff, save Leia - on board the MillenniumFalcon, which is only a light freighter, capacity-wise. The “outerrim allies” never show, so this is the entirety of the Resistanceforces. They have no combat fleet, no combat personnel, nobases, no resources, no guns, no ammo, no snub fighters, nothing buta single light freighter and their own limp dicks.

Butthe end of the movie shows them flying around handing out secretResistance rings to force-sensitive kids, as if cereal-box decoderrings are enough to overthrow a vast evil galactic empire. Your AR-15can’t stop a government with tanks and fighter planes, but RianJohnson expects us to believe that the ability to levitate rocks andplace intergalactic Skype calls without paying ComStar can overthrowSpace Nazis.

RianJohnson couldn’t write his way out of a Naruto fan forum.

THIS MOVIE IS AMORALLY REPREHENSIBLE SHITPILE THAT NORMALIZES LIES ABOUT ABUSIVEBEHAVIOR BY MALES TOWARDS FEMALES IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

That’sright. I said it.

Thismovie is actively harmful and insulting to women and girls.

Theblatant misandry is bad enough, but the messages it teaches girls areeven worse, the chief one being the normalization of Kylo Ren,the mass-murderer and fratricide “bad boy,” as someone who’s“good, deep down,” If Only The Right Woman Could Cure Him. Thisis a misguided fantasy that dates back to Wuthering Heights, and wasrecently resurrected by Twilight, the fantasy of “saving” a manwho’s violent, misogynistic and cruel. Fantasies aren’t realistic bydefinition, and they all feature in fiction because they’ve an appealto a certain audience - what makes them good or bad is the damagethey do to readers in real life who don’t discern the differencebetween fiction and reality until their misunderstanding leads theminto serious harm. The classic “beauty and the beast” theme of“taming” a “bad boy” stands chief among the offenders inthis category - but don’t ask me, just sample what countless others have written on the topic. Rey going from angry, grief-stricken accusations ofKylo the Fratricide to longing for his lightsaber after three briefskype calls, a look at his Rock Hard Abs and touching his hand once?It’s textbook Beauty And The Beast bullshit, and apoorly-written example, at that.

Thisis in addition to Rian’s explicit view that - as elucidated byHoldo’s own actress - a venomous, sneering bully is what aStrong Female Leader looks like; reinforcedby how the plot bends over backwards to portray Holdo as a hero. Inretrospect, the liberties taken to put Leia into a coma for most ofthe movie was probably done because Carrie Fisher just couldn’t actthe role of a bullying bitch, and that’s the character Rian Johnsonwanted to showcase as a feminist icon. Again, quoting Holdo’sactress, “[Rian is] saying something that’s been atrue challenge in feminism. Are we going to lead and be who we are aswomen in our femininity? Or are we going to dress up in a boy’sclothes to do the boy’s job?” The message here isn’t that girlscan be hot-shot fighter pilots or gunslinging heroes too - it’s thatmales are toxic, testosterone-driven fools and Real Women are “womenin their femininity.” Not “youcan be anything you want to be” but “feminimity is good andmasculinity is smelly dumb mansplaining scum.” Thisis fucked in the head, andI challenge anyone- especiallythose who recommended I watch this movie - to deny the charge Ijust leveled.

Andfinally, there’s the actions of Rian Johnson himself, the misandristfuckhead who wrote this pile of shit. He was building off the workand script of JJ Abrams, including all the character development that went into it - and now we can see what he decided to do with it.Rian didn’t just fail to make a movie - he actively threw away anopportunity to write a script with realprogressivesensibilities, substituted cheap “subversions” instead, and thenjerked off on Twitter about how fucking woke and progressive he is toget all the fawning accolades anyways.

RIAN JOHNSONPISSED AWAY THE MUCH BETTER STORY SET UP BY JJ ABRAMS IN THE FORCEAWAKENS, AND STILL HAS THE FUCKING GALL TO ACT LIKE HE DIDN’T

I’vebeen told - in various articles and in person - that TLJ achievesbrilliant subversion of expectations and fights against tired oldtropes that reinforce social status norms by bucking the Chosen Onewith Significant Bloodlines thing, most notably with Rey’s parentagerevealed to be of no consequence and Kylo’s focus on “killing thepast” and rejecting moral binaries to forge his own path.

So,on that note, let’s talk about Finn.

Finnwas a brilliant character in concept, the kind I often try to write -a common man, a faceless member of the rank-and-file who finds thecourage to step out of line, think for himself, and eventuallybecomes a hero in his own right. The opening of TFA, with the bloodyhandprint on Finn’s helmet serving to identify him and give a “faceto the faceless,” was a brilliant bit of visual storytelling, andFinn himself has a difficult and dangerous journey as a character.He’s limited in his abilities - he can’t pilot a ship, for instance -and for the longest time his only desire is to run as far away fromthe First Order as he possibly can, to live his own life in peace. Bythe end of TFA, he’s grievously wounded fighting an opponent he knowsdamn well outmatches him, all to defend the life of his new - andonly - friend, Rey. Goinginto TLJ, Finn is poised both as Rey’s most probable love interestand as a walkingrefutation of the Chosen Heroes trope; having gone from randomfaceless goon to the man who was responsible for destroying the DeathST- I mean Starkiller Base. Heknew the way into and out ofsaid base because he used to be on the sanitation detail, aquirk that makes perfect sense andemphasizes how the “little people” in inglamorousjobs often know cruciallittle details like that (like the back door the smokers use.)

Andwhat did Rian Johnson do with this setup?

Finnwakes up and is immediately used for comic relief, smacking his headon the medical scanner, then staggering around in a bacta suitleaking fluid everywhere. Thenhe tries to hare off after Rey, only to get tazed for trying to steala vehicle. Then he’squickly shuffled off to the side with Rose while Rey is suddenly, andwith very poor setup and justification, set up with Kylo and hisneon-white abs as her love interest.

Is now a goodtime to remind you that Finn is black? Yes,the black man gets 1. played for comic relief, 2. don’t tazeme bro, 3. shuffled offscreen while Rey is set up with a white boy toavoid any possibility of an interracial romance. Andall that’s in additiontoFinn’s noble sacrifice being portrayed as bad and wrong, while MightyWhitey Kami-Kaze Holdo is made out as a huge hero for the exactsame act.

Comparewhat Rian Johnson did with what he couldhave done, and thentry to tell me thismovie had any redeemingthemes, arcs, or execution. I fucking dareyou.

AVALON HAS FUCKINGFALLEN

TheLast Jedi is a towering monument to the rot at the heart of ourartistic society. The Force Awakens was a shameless regurgitationdesigned by a soulless corporation to bilk our nostalgic childhoodmemories for every penny we were worth, but at least it had acompetent writer/director at the helm that had some pride in hiswork. By contrast, The Last Jedi had that same greedy, scum-suckingcorporate machine at the helm and a writer-director thatepitomizes the creature that now infests Hollywood: an arrogant, self-congratulatory prick concerned onlywith vigorously stroking off his fellow wealthy cultural elites, sothey may take smug satisfaction in their moral superiority over theproles. Therecent spate ofself-described “male feminists” who’vebeen revealed to use their professed politics as cover to prey onwomen illustrate the forces at work here - if one utters theApproved Doctrine, everything else can be overlooked and forgiven.Portray Women as Good, Men as Bad and with a few cheap shots atCapitalism in the middle, and you can get away with not writing aplot at all, lazy and poorly-storyboarded CGI scenes that pushmerchandise, and even reducing a black man to comedic relief. This iswhat our corporate-run entertainment industry now rewards - to thetune of tens of millions of dollars - and what countlessleft-wing culture-war publications vigorously and viciously defendwith endless column inches of simpering praise and even asinineconspiracy theories about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy “gaming”Rotten Tomatoes user review scores to cover up how much audienceshated this fucking trash.

Asa writer, I happen to believe that Art means something. It matters.It nourishes the soul and teaches us lessons about why to liveour lives, not just how. Mankind has been telling stories forthousands of years before anyone figured out how to write them down,much less make a profit off them. As a species we are wired to thinknarratively, which is why stories have power - never a righteouskingdom nor a vile dictatorship has existed that didn’t invest greateffort in fashioning myths and legends to justify and strengthen itslegitimacy with the people. Stories can help, and they can even harm.

Storiesare serious fucking business. And Rian Johnson’s betrayal anddesecration of his art and craft is emblematic of what the very, verybig, wealthy and powerful entertainment business thinks isacceptable. The business of multimillionare serial rapists that arealso major political donors, the business of complicit yes-men actorsthat routinely use their fame, wealth, and cultural influence to tipthe scales of our national political debate - that business.

Ifyou’re like me; if you dream of telling stories that matter,stories that change peoples lives and give them hope as other’sstories have done for you - prepare for dark times ahead. It’s clearnow that Avalon has fallen; that the existing establishment is toothoroughly corrupted to serve society any useful purpose. We’ll haveto use the internet, vanity presses and small websites - as long asAmazon, Google, and the other West-coast headquartered monopoliesallow us them, that is - and do the best we can. Whatever Hollywoodin particular and the entertainment industry in general is puttingout anymore, it sure as hell isn’t art, in any sense ofthe word you might imagine. The real artists will have to starve,scrape, beg, and struggle - but what they make will be worthwatching, instead of an affront to common sense and common decency.Call them Rebels, or perhaps the Resistance - just don’t callthem surprising, because I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO.

24 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 4 years

Text

Raya and The Last Dragon Review: The Best Disney Princess Movie Since Mulan

https://ift.tt/2LtrBLV

If Raya and the Last Dragon proves anything, it’s that Disney is trying to tell a more modern “Disney Princess” story with their latest animated effort. Commercially, Disney’s transition into the 21st century has been a smooth one. While the shuttering of Disney theme parks in the last year due to the pandemic has cost the billions-dollar conglomerate money, Disney has many, many revenue streams, and the Disney brand remains strong. And much of that brand still relies on the studio’s signature Disney Princess movies, which have not had as seamless a narrative transition into modern storytelling as many fans might have hoped.

Rigidly faithful live-action adaptations of the animated classics that millennials grew up with are now recognized for their narrow romantic messaging, and the often racist, colonialist world-building that’s used to prop up this type of storytelling. Meanwhile Walt Disney Animation Studios has attempted to complicate and modernize the Disney Princess template in interesting ways, but they’ve never quite nailed it narratively.

Frozen was a step in the right direction with its emphasis on sisterly love, but it couldn’t resist shoehorning a thematically superfluous romance into its plot with the Kristoff character. Moana, which features Disney’s first Polynesian heroine, makes great strides in giving viewers a more authentic representation of a non-European culture, but still makes some classic colonialist mistakes—blindspots that will always surface when the chief creative forces behind a film are appropriating a culture or cultures they are paid to understand—that keep its fresh setting from truly shining.

Disney is working to tell more modern stories not because it is good for our culture and world (though individuals involved in the production of Disney films might be motivated by this value), but because there is money to be made in telling new stories that give us fresh, feminist takes on the many cultures that influence the melting pot (or salad bowl) that is modern America and the territories of the larger global box office. Raya and the Last Dragon, which will be in theaters and available via Disney+ Premier Access on March 5, makes headway from both the thematic surplus of Frozen and the cultural appropriation of Moana. In doing so, it gives us the best, post-Renaissance “Disney Princess” story yet.

Raya lives in a fictional land once known as Kumandra, a place where humans and dragons co-existed in harmony. Five hundred years before the start of our story, monsters known as the Druun came to Kumandra, turning both people and dragons to stone. Dragons sacrificed themselves to save humanity, but fear and paranoia tore Kumandra apart into five distinct lands, each named after a different part of the dragon: Heart, Tail, Spine, Talon, and Fang. Raya lives in Heart, where her family has tasked itself with guarding the Dragon Gem, the MacGuffin that the last dragon used to save the world a half-millennia prior. When the Dragon Gem is broken and the Druun return, Raya sets out to find the mythical last dragon, Sisu, and to fix the world.

We are told that this story takes place long ago, but Raya’s vibrant world is already well-lived in when we come to it. The societies of Kumandra are different from both the European castles of Beauty and the Beast or Frozen, and the more rural aesthetic of Pocahontas or Moana. Pushing back against the false binary of the “civilized” city and the indigenous wilderness of other Disney Princess movies, the world of Raya is both urban and organic.

The filmmakers traveled throughout Southeast Asia to do research for the film, and it shows. Visually, Raya’s Heart homeland looks like Cambodia’s Angkor Wat, a vestige of the mighty Khmer empire. A trip to Talon reveals a merchant town seemingly in perpetual night market mode. It’s a Disney-fied version of the Banana Pancake Trail more than a specific cultural vision, but that doesn’t totally undercut the excitement the fresh Disney Princess setting infuses into its narrative.

The world of Raya and The Last Dragon is both teeming and accessible at the same time, suggestive of a richness and depth that welcomes rather than intimidates. It is more reminiscent of Avatar: The Last Airbender than anything Disney has done before.

To be clear, like Avatar before it, Raya and The Last Dragon is still very much an American story. While the setting may be a fictionalized world inspired by Southeast Asian cultures, Raya‘s premise is classic Hollywood: Raya suffers a familial tragedy and then must set out on her own quest to save the world. Raya brings that storytelling structure into the 21st century by eschewing the traditional trappings of romance or personal glory (which can be done in modern, interesting ways, but, given the redundancy of those stories needs to be worked harder toward), and leaning into themes of healing, forgiveness, and community. The biggest stakes here aren’t about securing a love or marriage—which, at least in Western media, has inextricable ties to the consolidation of privilege and power—but rather the (figurative) soul of humanity.

While Raya is, broadly speaking, a princess (her father Chief Benja is the leader of Kumandra’s Heart land), Raya’s quest to collect all of the pieces of the Dragon Gem is explicitly depicted to be about a fair redistribution of power and resources. The Druun are simple monsters, yes, but they are also effective stand-ins for the much more intangible forces that threaten our present and future: namely climate change and the devastating conflict that arises from the instability it creates. In Raya, our heroine’s mission is never about regaining or consolidating power. It’s about healing a community and, with it, the natural world—two necessary pieces of the same solution.

Raya and the Last Dragon has a diverse team behind its story. Written by Vietnamese-American playwright Qui Nguyen (Dispatches From Elsewhere, The Society) and Malaysian-born American Adele Lim (Crazy Rich Asians), the movie was co-directed by American filmmaker (and Moana co-director) Don Hall and by Mexican-American filmmaker Carlos López Estrada (Blindspotting). Thai artist Fawn Veerasunthorn served as the Head of Story for the film. It’s hard to imagine a predominantly white creative team telling this same story with anywhere close to the same success.

Lim (along with with co-writer Nguyen) brings the same character-driven humor she displayed in the Crazy Rich Asians script, giving Raya some laugh out loud funny moments for both kids and adults. Much of the American audience’s previous experience with Southeast Asian settings will no doubt be from the mostly masculine-coded aesthetic of action movie set-pieces or martial arts films that made their way to the United States. In Raya and the Last Dragon, we get both action set-pieces and martial arts showdowns… but they can also be pretty. That feels new.

The film has been criticized for its lack of Southeast Asian representation in its cast, which mostly features voice actors of East Asian descent. This kind of blanket, pan-regional representation is common in Hollywood, which tends to conflate communities of color based on a perceived shared distance to whiteness rather than any similarities their cultures may or may not have to one another. This is also true for Raya and the Last Dragon, which drew from the cultures of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar, and Malaysia to tell its story. Southeast Asia has a population of over 670 million, which makes up more than 8.5 percent of the global population. It is a region with diverse and distinct cultures, and Raya and the Last Dragon‘s attempt to conflate them all into one world and call it fictional is problematic and will most likely undercut the emotional effectiveness of the story for some viewers.

While Raya‘s world may feel fresh and vibrant to many viewers, it’s the film’s character work that truly shines. The Disney Princess movie has not one, but three female characters at the heart of its film: Raya (Kelly Marie Tran), antagonist Namaari (Gemma Chan), and dragon Sisu (Awkwafina, with her signature blend of goofiness and heart). They all have complex relationships with themselves and one another, even when on different sides of the race for the Dragon Gem. The girl trifecta is rounded out by a solid supporting cast filled with subversive and fun character types that twist the plot and complicate the world in unexpected ways, including Raya’s adorable and visually clever pet pill bug companion Tuk Tuk (Alan Tudyk).

Movies

How Raya and the Last Dragon Became the First Disney Movie Made at Home

By David Crow

Movies

Raya and the Last Dragon Finds Magic in Southeast Asian Tradition

By David Crow

In a culture where more people than ever have a platform to voice their criticisms of mainstream stories, there is no such thing as a non-problematic fave. Raya and the Last Dragon will no doubt have its critics, and many of them will have valid criticisms. As viewers, we all have our narrative priorities—the aspects of storytelling that will pull us out of a story if done poorly, and the narrative elements that we prioritize so highly we will forgive a story its faults when done well.

For me, Raya and The Last Dragon is the most exciting Disney Princess story since Mulan. It gives us fiercely kind and incredibly flawed characters who care about healing a broken world and a setting that recognizes there is beauty and value outside of European castle towns. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s something incredibly special that feels like a step forward for the Disney Princess canon.

Raya and the Last Dragon is available to watch on Disney+ beginning on March 5.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Raya and The Last Dragon Review: The Best Disney Princess Movie Since Mulan appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3e4iVrj

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

1 note · View note

mermaidsirennikita · 7 years

Note

Hi! Do you like Gone with the Wind and what do you think about Scarlett O'Hara?

So. Gone with the Wind and I have a complicated relationship.

I. I’m a young child. Maybe seven or eight. My mom’s playing Gone with the Wind, which she would because my mom loves it. It’s pretty boring, though I distinctly remember bits like Scarlett getting drunk after her second husband’s death and Scarlett and Rhett dancing while she’s in her widow’s weeds. But there’s a scene I find particularly disgusting--when some guy’s leg gets amputated. It’s gross and gory (to little me) so I’m like fuck this shit.

II. I’m thirteen, in the eighth grade. Gone with the Wind is a classic, and I was on a classic kick at the time because I’d just read Wuthering Heights and decided that it was one of my favorite books ever (it still is). I check GWTW out from the library, and UGH, a fire is lit. I devour that long-ass book. I read it again. I go on various websites dissecting it, read articles and analyses of what it all meant. I watch the movie, buy the DVD, buy an ancient copy of the book because it’s beautiful and a paperback because I need more than one copy. I read my mom’s book about the making of the movie, watch other movies Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh did. I make the book the centerpiece of my final project/paper for 11th grade high school English, basically about how Rhett symbolized reconstruction south and Ashley symbolized the antebellum. (I get an A.)

III. Some time passes. I read more about how Butterfly McQueen felt about her role as Prissy--and I’m increasingly made more uncomfortable with her scenes. I read about the paradox roles like Prissy and Mammy present, because while they’re not good representation for black women, it’s not like we can dismiss the importance of Hattie McDaniel’s Oscar win or the quality of those performances. I think about what it means, exactly, that the movie cut the KKK plot from the book (and how did Margaret Mitchell feel about that plot--does the fact that Rhett, a character who symbolizes inevitable and necessary progressive change, think it’s bullshit mean something?). And what about that marital rape scene?

Basically, I think that a lot of what you’ll see old white male film critics (who never consider the book, which admittedly aside from a few changes like aforementioned KKK plot and Scarlett’s first two children) critique about GWTW is bullshit. The story itself, from a story perspective, is epic and complex. It’s both entertaining and deep--there is intentional symbolism, there are incredibly deep characters. I think it’s so important that the book was written by a woman and is about a woman--and a woman who isn’t good at all, but is selfish and sexually voracious and not a good mother or friend. But who does love people truly and deeply, and doesn’t do what she does solely for personal gain (though that’s often her motivation). Scarlett’s a real human being. So is Rhett. Many of the other characters are plot device-y, but those two felt and still feel wholly real to me. (And though Melanie isn’t super real I love her anyway.)

The issues with Gone with the Wind have nothing to do with things like character and story and everything to do with the fact it’s dated and inherently problematic. Though I should note that Margaret Mitchell apparently disliked that the movie turned the story into a romantic ode to the bygone era of the south, when Mitchell herself evidently saw it as a story about how the south of Scarlett’s childhood had to die. It was weak and unsustainable, like Ashley. Does this mean she was progressive? No. There’s something wrong with Mammy’s undying loyalty to Scarlett, despite her critiques of the woman. The slaves are treated as simpletons, more in the movie than in the book. In the book you see Scarlett think stupid shit like “well the slaves wouldn’t get on without us” but you’re also like mmmm Scarlett is a dumbass a lot of the time and couldn’t do a lot of what she does without Mammy, SOOOO what’s really going on here. I don’t know if that was intentional on Mitchell’s part, so I can’t critique it.

It’s impossible for the material to not be dated and problematic and I think that it’s important to consume it with a critical eye. But yes, I absolutely love Gone with the Wind. It’s one of my favorite books and favorite movies and Scarlett O’Hara is one of my favorite characters.

(I didn’t address the marital rape scene because... it’s another thing I have very mixed feelings about. And I basically have to measure the scene by the way that Scarlett feels about it--which is also mixed. Do I think it’s problematic that her reaction to that scene is basically “best sex of my life”? Yes. Do I think it’s out of character that Scarlett, a malicious person who takes pleasure in inflicting pain on others, who has enjoyed fighting with Rhett most of their relationship even before they married, and loves getting a rise out of him to find that experience thrilling? Not really. Does that absolve Rhett? Nope. But there’s also an element of “they deserve each other” to Scarlett and Rhett’s relationship tbh because while he’s hideous to her at points, she’s also incredibly emotional manipulative and abusive to him at times. I’ll also say that the scene is waaaay more interesting in the book, for obvious reasons because the movie at the time couldn’t show what happened AFTER they went into the bedroom. And even in the book it’s vague, but it’s debated for a reason.)

I love Scarlett so much and I measure a good character by Scarlett sometimes. She’s just such a hateful person, and yet so many of us love her? She’s an antihero, a borderline villain to be honest. When you really look at GWTW, it’s this 12-year saga of a woman-child who wraps people around her little finger romantically and platonically, is incredibly jealous and vindictive and basically sets out to ruin another woman’s life because of events entirely out of her control. She’s a horrible wife, basically not giving a fuck about her first husband, only marrying the second because she needs cash (and ruining her own sister’s prospects in the process) and ignoring the fact that she loves Rhett and absolutely destroying him emotionally in part because... he genuinely loves her? She genuinely loves him? It’s complicated. Also she’s like the worst mom and it’s kind of HILARIOUS in a dark way. Scarlett being like “BE A LITTLE MAN WADE” to her sobbing toddler in wartorn Georgia as they struggle to escape Atlanta is... terrible but iconic. It’s implied that her second child suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome and Scarlett just dislikes her because she’s ugly. Rhett is literally a better parent to his two stepchildren than their own mother, which isn’t saying shit because Rhett is a human disaster whose indulgence of his child indirectly leads to her death.

But the thing is that I admire so much Scarlett’s ability to survive. Her sheer determination and resilience. I think the book is kind of about the fact that in order to survive certain things, you have to let your inner rabid animal out. You can’t necessarily be a good person and live through certain traumas, and that’s... okay. Maybe you can recover your goodness, but if letting go of it means that you’ll keep your life and your sanity intact--that shit happens. And it’s also about growing up and shedding the dreams of what you thought life would be, accepting the reality that the world has given you. That’s what Scarlett as a character is about, really.

And just as landmarks of fiction, the book and the movie are hugely impactful. The book contributed heavily to the idea of the flawed female protagonist, sometimes the antagonist of her own story. It’s an erotic read, and the movie for the day was an erotic movie--and that eroticism is targeted towards WOMEN, the female audience. Scarlett is allowed to be a sexual being--in fact, it’s a big part of the Ashley vs. Rhett conflict. Sure, Ashley is her romantic dream, but what if a woman doesn’t just want romance? What about the sexual side of her that isn’t necessarily about love--it’s about getting fucked and well? (Say what you will about That Scene, but the image of Vivien Leigh SINGING in bed after implied sex was a pretty big deal for the 1930s, esp. when it came to mainstream blockbusters.) God, what about the fact that though Rhett leaves her at the end, Scarlett isn’t necessarily “punished” in one big sweeping way. Her life is a nightmare, sure--she loses her parents, her favorite child, her unborn baby, the husband she loves ditches her after she finally realizes that she loves him. But she’s alive. She’s got her ancestral home. She lives to fight another day and ends the story with hope. After all she’s done, the story STILL lets her have another shot at life. Hell, she’s still only in her late twenties. Few male protagonists got away with that kind of shit, let alone females. I love it.

Also, she definitely gets Rhett back after the book is done, I’m not saying it’s right or fair, I’m saying that Rhett Butler is her emotional bitch and there’s no way he didn’t take her back eventually, the end.

#like... never read/watch gwtw without a critical eye #but it's so important to me #Anonymous

15 notes · View notes

angeltriestoblog · 4 years

Text

I watched a couple of movies! (April roundup)

I’m glad to announce that I finally found a way to rave about the movies I’ve watched without boring you all to death, driving myself to the brink of insanity, and damaging my eyesight even more. Instead of giving a comprehensive review on each one, I decided to give you my top picks for every month in an attempt to convince you to watch these life-changing pieces of cinema! Maybe someday I could include some of the worst I’ve seen as well because it's easier (and more fun) to point out the flaws I spot.

So without further ado, here are the creme of the crop for the month of April!

Philadelphia (1993, dir. Jonathan Demme) ★★★★★

This superbly crafted film was one of the first in Hollywood to tackle the issue of HIV/AIDS—and with the right amount of sensitivity—during a time when discrimination against victims was at its most rampant. That fact alone makes it deserving of the praise, recognition, and accolades it has collected over the years. Add to that the remarkable performance of Tom Hanks as Andy Beckett, the lawyer fired from the prestigious firm he works for who enlists the help of Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) to take this matter to court. His dedication to the role is evident not only in his dramatic weight loss but the intensity of the emotions he brings to all of his scenes. Though I know a lot of audiences are concerned that the account is told mainly from Miller’s perspective, I found this aspect crucial to his growth as a character and the movie’s effectivity as a call to empathy and compassion.

Certified Copy (2010, dir. Abbas Kiarostami) ★★★★½

It's so difficult to review this without giving away what makes it different from anything that's ever been made, probably. But then again, even if I dive deep into the plot and provide my theories, I doubt it’ll make sense so I’ll say this. Certified Copy is a mind-bender of an arthouse film disguised as a love story of the Before Sunset variety. It’s a deceivingly linear tale of a French woman known only as “She” (Juliette Binoche) who goes to a book signing and offers to explore the city of Tuscany with the author (William Shimell). His work asserts that the reproduction of a certain thing possesses as much value as the original, so much so that it can even take its place. The extent to which this is true is shown in the many ways their relationship changes in the span of a single afternoon. It’s normal to be frustrated once you’ve finished it. I had a “What the hell?” moment myself and had to rewatch some parts a few more times. But once you realize that the plot is an artifice, like fiction and art itself, that’s when you come to terms with how real it actually is.

The Farewell (2019, dir. Lulu Wang) ★★★★★

This is practically Wang's two-hour thesis on why grandmothers are the best people on the planet and we don’t deserve them. It's not like I needed an external source to prove it was true but I adored it anyway. This Oscar snub is “based on a true lie”: Nai Nai (Zhao Shuzhen), the matriarch of a Chinese clan, is diagnosed with cancer, and her loved ones go to extreme lengths to keep it a secret from her. I appreciated the accurate depiction of the mess that is the Asian extended family: immigrant parents, their first-generation kids, and the relatives they left behind at the homeland under one roof can only mean endless bickering and picking at old wounds. But in all seriousness, its grasp of human emotions—as seen in the brilliant acting performances and authentic dialogue—reels you in instantly and keeps you emotionally invested and painfully waiting for the heartbreaking (?) conclusion.

Interstellar (2014, dir. Christopher Nolan) ★★★★★

In what is arguably Nolan’s most complex and ambitious work yet, we find Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) in what appears to be a shadow of the Earth we live in right now. After a fateful turn of events, he is tapped by NASA to carry out a mission in search of a habitable world for the human population. Rarely do we see a creative project that aspires to be everything at once and succeeds with flying colors. Interstellar is that gem for me. It pushes the limits of our imagination and tests the very boundaries of science and space while serving as a reminder of what it means to be human. It may clock in at 167 minutes but I think that if the run time had been cut down, it would be impossible to do justice to this multi-faceted story. In fact, with the emotionally resonant performances by the cast as well as the phenomenal score (Hans Zimmer, you are a god) and cinematography, I am honestly willing to see another three hours of extra footage.

Mommy (2014, dir. Xavier Dolan) ★★★★½

This… was a lot. I remember watching this first thing in the morning a couple of weeks ago, and not being able to do anything of importance for the entire day since I was too busy wondering if I’ll ever be suitable for the lifelong commitment that is motherhood. This award-winning, affecting tale revolves around Die Despres (Anne Dorval), a struggling journalist and single mom to Steve (Antoine Olivier Pilon), her hyperactive, abusive son diagnosed with ADHD. Although a law had been passed in Canada which lets cash-strapped parents place their troubled kids in hospitals, she refuses to give him up and takes him under her wing: after all, they’re best at loving even when it’s hard. What unfolds after makes it hard to tell how the whole thing ends, but it’s a visually arresting and thought-provoking experience anyway. Dolan also possesses a strong command of the language of filmmakers: critics agree that its most notable aspect is the fact that it was shot in a 1:1 aspect ratio, which allowed me to assume the position of a next-door neighbor peering through their living room window.

Frances Ha (2012, dir. Noah Baumbach) ★★★★★

Before Greta Gerwig was the director extraordinaire we know her to be, she was Frances Halladay, an aspiring dancer who moves to New York City with her best friend and comes face to face with several, consecutive life crises. Her reality couldn’t be any further removed from mine (as a 19-year-old student on the complete opposite side of the world), but it remains highly relatable. At their core, her problems are rooted in a fear of loneliness and failure—just like the rest of us! Come to think of it, maybe that’s why it’s in black-and-white: to give the movie a sense of timelessness since it tackles themes and issues that remain universal and prevalent across generations. I loved Frances as a protagonist, though she far from perfect: she’s immature and petty and quite frankly, she had no clue what she was doing until the last 15 minutes—just like me! And yet she powered through in the end, which gives me hope that I’ll be able to do the same.

Fight Club (1999, dir. David Fincher) ★★★★½

Believe it or not, despite its straightforward title and predominantly male fanbase, I was completely taken aback when the unnamed narrator (Edward Norton) and Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) started beating each other up in the middle of a parking lot—the very event that led to the establishment of their underground fight club. What initially appears to be a man’s search for a way out of the boring humdrum of his everyday existence evolves into a structural analysis of consumer capitalism and critique of toxic masculinity. There’s a lot of gore and violence but I pulled through thanks to the stunning visuals, unpredictable plot, and Brad Pitt’s beautiful face. Although the twist towards the end wasn’t exactly revolutionary for me because it kind of resembled Primal Fear (1996), it was still a mind-blowing and fitting conclusion to this cult classic.

Pretty Woman (1990, dir. Garry Marshall) ★★★★★

This modern-day Cinderella story about a hooker who falls in love with a wealthy businessman has become problematic for my generation. There are a ton of essays on Letterboxd attempting to start discourse on its ethics, calling it out for its misogynistic undertones, and criticizing it for being unrealistic. I actually saw a review that said it indirectly promotes prostitution as a means to get ahead in life, which could wrongly influence teenage girls. (How stupid do you think we are?) At the end of the day, this is a romantic comedy—and an outstanding one, at that! This probably has the most equal distribution of swoon-worthy scenes and laugh-out-loud moments out of all the romcoms I’ve watched, and we have the lead actors’ insane chemistry and the consistently witty script to thank. Needless to say, Julia Roberts is an absolute delight as Vivian Ward and it’s only fitting that it was this particular role that catapulted her to superstardom. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna rewatch this then proceed to play It Must Have Been Love for another 70 times.

The Fundamentals of Caring (2016, dir. Rob Burnett) ★★★★★

I genuinely think that everything Paul Rudd touches turns to gold. Here, he plays Ben, caretaker to Trevor (Craig Roberts), a sarcastic teen suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Together, they make a spur-of-the-moment decision to take a cross-country road trip to see several roadside attractions and of course, come to terms with their own issues. I admit that my love for this comes with the acute awareness that if I had found it on Netflix at a different time, I wouldn’t have appreciated it as much. It’s fairly predictable, it doesn’t strive towards anything complex or require much reflection on our part but it ties together neatly and satisfyingly in the end—truly a perfect comfort film! The equivalent of the warm, 10-second-long, oxytocin-inducing hug that we all need and can't have right now, given the state of our world!

Edit (05/09/20): I’m currently binge-watching Timothee Chalamet interviews and he just told Stephen Colbert that he had auditioned for this but wasn’t accepted for the job. Imagine him and Paul Rudd together... the visual power that duo would hold... I would miss the point of the movie entirely.

So, that’s it for this month! I’ve actually been spending more time writing lately but I hope I can continue to squeeze in something to watch into my schedule so I can actually be consistent with this series. Till next time! Exciting things up ahead! Wishing you love and light always, and don’t forget to wash your hands, check your privilege and pray for our frontliners!

#recs #quarantingz #angeltriestoblog #my eyesight just went up a grade #check out my new about page!!!#and portfolio!!!#<3

0 notes

rhetorical-ink · 8 years

Text

Rhetorical Ink Reviews: Beauty and the Beast (2017 Live Action)

**Careful for SPOILERS below**

I will be the first to admit that I’m a HUGE Beauty and the Beast fan. I had the book as a kid, wanted to be Belle, and have had a large fascination with the story and believe it spurned me into wanting to draw more.

So, the Live Action adaptation had HUGE shoes to fill for me before even going in. I tried to look at the film as a standalone and not judge it based on the predecessor...a VERY hard task when watching, I might add.

My best friend saw it with me and she loved it! What did I think? Well, putting ten thoughts alone would not do my favorite childhood movie justice. So instead, I am doing a Top Ten Likes and Top Ten Dislikes. Careful for spoilers!

My Top Ten Likes of Beauty and the Beast (2017):

10. The set and costumes: Everything has layers and detail and colors that pop but also makes sense for the time period. I LOVED the costumes and even the yellow gown, considering the wardrobe “makes it” in this, grew on me quickly. As for the sets? They are beautifully ornate and have a classic “other worldly” look to them. I could watch the movie over and over to gawk at the scenery and character designs.

9. The Opening Scene: Nothing will ever live up to the deep voice of the narrator and the stained glass...but there was something so fresh about how we started on the Prince, how the dance unfolded, and how the Enchantress appeared. She looked gorgeous and the classic French scene was a welcome addition (more so than others...but we’ll talk of that soon). In any case, it is a worthy contrast from the beginning, when he’s surrounded by beautiful girls, to late when there’s only Belle.

8. Kevin Kline as Maurice: Kevin Kline is a fine actor, and he brings such a charm and dignity to the formerly bumbling character. I still like Maurice in the animated movie, but it makes more sense for Belle’s father to be an artist and hopeless romantic than a “world famous inventor.” Kline’s performance was a highlight for me and definitely added to the movie as a whole.

7. “Kill the Beast!” I’ll talk more about some other songs below, but this was by far my favorite number; this is EXACTLY what I was hoping for with this song in live action form. It does not disappoint. Speaking of “Kill the Beast...”

6. We see Gaston and Lefou learning where the castle is: A big question I had as a kid was, “How did they know where to go to find the Beast?” In this, we get our answer. Lefou and Gaston actually follow Maurice to the woods, where he believes he can route them to the Beast’s castle. This backfires on him, but in any case we learn how Gaston and Lefou knew where to go in the first place.

5. Belle is more an inventor....and a teacher: It makes sense for Belle to be as learned as she is to be more of the inventor. I loved the little scene where she does her own laundry with the contraption she made and is trying to teach a little girl to read. After having to sit through a preview for a CGI movie where the boy character is an inventor and the girl, lo and behold, wants to just be a dancer...it’s nice to see “ahead of their time” people represented in a modern movie’s version of a classic time period.

4. Lefou paying off the people to dance and help during “Gaston:”

It was a little tidbit to note for the film, but Lefou pays off the people to help dance in the “Gaston” music number; and Belle does pay for the food in the market she gets. It’s little touches like that which help to cement this story in a more “realistic” world.

3. The ensemble of side characters:

This entire cast was well-chosen. Josh Gad as Lefou? Perfection; he was born for the role! Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts? She’s about as close to Angela Lansbury as you can get for this role, I feel. Ewan McGregor as Lumiere? I was on the fence about this casting, but it works so well. Luke Evans as Gaston? He fits the part great. Sir Ian McKellan as Cogsworth? Again, I had no clue what to think, but he may have been my favorite in the whole side cast. Even Stanley Tucci and the Wardrobe’s actress were great choices. They really did a perfect job casting the side characters...but as for the main characters...

2. Dan Stevens as The Beast/The Prince:

This WAS perfect casting! I know they’ve altered the voice and distorted it to sound similar to the animated Beast. But seriously, the motion capture work on his face and his range of emotion are perfect here. It’s hard to believe, but I care more for his character as the Beast than the animated (for reasons below); plus, the main thing: He looks SO much better as the human Prince. From the opening to the end scene, he may be my favorite character, actor, and part of the film. Definitely a genius casting choice and excellent performance!

1. All of the added scenes of Belle and The Beast learning about one another:

If I had one, minuscule complaint with the original Beauty and the Beast, it is that we don’t get many scenes of Belle and the Beast “falling in love” and getting to know one another. He saves her, gives her a library, and then they just sort of fall in love post-dance...obviously, it’s not a huge issue, since you’re pacing this out in movie format.

However, I feel this movie allowed more time for these two to connect. Also, they found common ground; first, with their love of literature, but second, with losing their mothers and how their father’s shaped who they were: The Prince’s with hate, and Belle’s with love. It was a beautiful duality and connection created between them and it helped to make the ending better and more satisfying.

Of course, especially considering the movie is based on a staple of my childhood, it CERTAINLY has flaws, as noted below.

My Top 10 Dislikes of Beauty and the Beast (2017):

10. The obvious Enchantress:

I do like the twist of The Enchantress being Agathe, a character we see throughout the story...perhaps she’s keeping the magic strong? However, there are a lot of problematic elements of her being in the movie so much. For one thing, she saves Maurice, which is good, but then when Maurice confronts Gaston, she doesn’t do anything. She could have stopped all of our conflict! Also, at the end, while she shows up and it does make sense in a technical sense...she just vanishes. Belle doesn’t even see her...what was the point? In the animated movie, the spell was broken without her having to be there. Having her there didn’t answer questions; it created more! It just seemed awkward at times.

9. Gaston’s “post-war” blood rage?

While I appreciate them trying to flesh out Gaston’s character...this was their choice? He’s got post-war bursts of rage? I love how the animated movie treated Gaston just as the jerk-bro who becomes jealous and can’t stand that Belle chooses someone over him. Here, his villainous outbursts are “justified” by his post-war blood lust. It just seemed almost like a distraction and didn’t seem warranted for me. Gaston is a near-perfect villain. Let Luke Evans do a good job of playing him without trying to make him too complex. Gaston’s not smart enough for that.

8. The unnecessary additional songs:

Maybe I’m in a minority here, but I wasn’t crazy about the new songs. The Soundtrack of Beauty and the Beast is nearly flawless. Even the special edition with “Human Again” is okay. The Broadway songs they add...are okay. “Evermore” is not a terrible song (we’ll talk more about it below), but the song about “Sunny skies” and “Evermore” are not necessary to make the story better. If you wanted to include them in a “Director’s Cut,” that would have sufficed for me...I just didn’t see the need for them here...again, I’ll touch back on this point twice below.

7. Don’t bring an arrow to a gun fight:

In the original, Gaston was a hunter, so it made sense he had multiple weapons at his disposal. It also made sense for the time period. And he hunted a lot of deer-like animals, so it seemed fitting that he would shoot an arrow at the Beast and then stab him with a knife....hunting tools for the type of game he hunted.

In this? We just full blown (literally) gun the Beast down. Gaston shoots the Beast three times in the climax. At the very least, he still uses a club like the original. It just seemed like overkill and to me, didn’t make as much sense as keeping like the original would have.

6. The rushed beginning and scenes out of place:

The opening, I loved; however, once that scene was over, the first thirty minutes seemed SO rushed! They rushed through “Belle,” then moved some scenes around, and quickly went through the reprise! There wasn’t the “wedding proposal” scene with Gaston and Belle! I did LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the reaction of Maurice and Chip, but there were little scenes that were skimmed over and rearranged that just seemed to rush the opening and didn’t let us the audience “settle down” into the film. It’s not until we’re at the scene of Belle running away from the castle that the movie starts to slow down. The editing of the movie in those places was a little disappointing to me.

5. Lefou and the lack of controversy:

Okay, so the last week has been filled with news stories about how Lefou is the first openly gay character in a Disney film. It was a huge source of controversy...but....in all seriousness......you wouldn’t really know that watching this film. It’s clear he cares for Gaston, but the animated picture portrayed that as well. He shares two seconds with a male character at the very end of the movie in a brief dance...but that’s it. All that press and controversy for a tiny scene that seems inconsequential. Eh. Come on, Disney. Commit or not; don’t try to play up something that’s halfway even developed.

4. The Enchantress’s book:

I loved the extra scenes with Belle and Beast developing their relationship over the course of a few scenes. However, one comes out of nowhere and does nothing to the plot as a whole. At one point, the Beast shows her a book the Enchantress gave him as a “joke.” It is able to take them anywhere you think of; and Belle chooses the room she was born in, where her mother dies of the plague. While I DO love a few things about this: the fact that it connects Belle and the Beast more, and it explains what happened to her...it’s never used again. The book is just a one-time only plot device. The scene it was used in was SO out of place! I would have rather Belle had known why her mother died and just talked it out with the Beast than having used this forced book that logically doesn’t fit in with the story.

3. The Beast’s Song, “Evermore:”

I don’t dislike “Evermore,” I don’t...but...in the animated movie, when Belle leaves Beast, he is so heartbroken. He lets out a howl of despair, knowing his only chance of happiness has left him, potentially forever. Here, he immediately bursts into a Phantom of the Opera style musical number. Maybe upon reviewing, I’ll appreciate it. But I loved how the original was so organic and raw...this seemed almost too Broadway and too theatrical.

2. Emma Watson’s facial expressions vs. animated Belle:

I love the original because of the animation, mainly. The expressions and line work showed SO much emotion. Now, I like Emma Watson a lot as an actress. BUT, aside from the wolf scene on....her facial expressions are so subdued. This is most apparent in “Be Our Guest.” Belle in that musical number is in AWE! She is so excited, bewildered, and amazed...but here? She just smiles and watches the show. Granted, Emma Watson would have been watching a Green Screen throughout this; but STILL. She doesn’t even seem in shock or awe...and that I sorely missed in this film. Now, after the wolves attack Belle, Watson’s acting becomes more pronounced. I just wish she could have acted a little more in-character through some of the CGI numbers.

1. The cut out comedy:

When I asked my brother if he was thinking of seeing the movie, he asked about the fight scene at the end:

Brother: “Do they have the part where Lumiere burns Lefou’s butt? Or Cogsworth with the scissors?”

Me: “No.”

Brother: “What?! How could they?”

There is so much physical comedy in the original that works; here, and yes, I understand that it is “physically” impossible some of the things they do, I still was hoping there would be more of the original comedy. For example, Cogsworth taking Belle on a tour of the castle isn’t even in the FILM! “If it’s not baroque, don’t fix it.” SERIOUSLY.

THE VERDICT?

The original is near-perfect for me. Still today, it is the better film. If you love the original and are expecting a closely faithful adaptation; they try, but it’s a miss there, because some of the best parts are either condensed or left out.

If you love Beauty and the Beast, but you’re comfortable with them altering parts and want to see new additions to the story? You’ll probably like this!

The original is still better though. If you don’t want to spend the $10 at the theatre, just wait until the DVD or Blu-Ray comes out and watch the original in the meantime.

If you’ve never seen the original Beauty and the Beast? PLEASE watch that one first; it’s better. If you’ve already seen the live action one? STILL go view the animated version; you’ll appreciate it more.

171 notes · View notes

idreamtofmanderleyagain · 8 years

Text

Hellraiser as a Horror Fairy Tale

So for a while now I’ve been struggling to come to a clear, concise take on what I feel the classic Hellraiser’s are actually trying to be about. There’s a lot of themes here that are easy to emotionally grasp, but it’s been a bit of a struggle to try and build a coherent logical analysis on what all of these layers are conveying when properly understood all together (let alone figuring out how to verbalize what I was seeing). This is going to be a MASSIVE post, so buckle up for a long ride.

This has been especially frustrating because so many people have already asserted so much. There’s a lot of analysis out there that feels very unfocused and vague, or focuses far too much on very specific aspects that someone has isolated, like the unsettling theme of “pain and pleasure, indivisible.” The problem of course being that these aspects isolated like this are taken out of their full context, divorcing them of the very necessary emotional/psychological depth of the narrative, resulting in a rather simplistic, confused, or vague understanding of what kind of story we’re actually being told. This is problematic because it’s very clear that these films, the first two (and even three!) in particular, are deliberately using these horror elements as metaphor and analogy in a way very similar to traditional, dark and bloody fairy tales (see the outright fairy tale themes and references in H2). These are films that seem to function with a similar kind of gothic unreality that say, Angela Carter’s works do. And in any good fairy tale, a wolf is not a wolf.

Overall, I feel like the classic Hellraiser films are narratives discussing the nature of physical versus spiritual experience, the intersections thereof, and how this applies to the complexities of human suffering, trauma, abuse, etc. First, I should clarify what I mean by “spiritual.” I don’t mean “spiritual” in a faith/religious/superstitious sense, but as in humanity; in other words our personhood, the part of us that experiences emotion, empathy, craves human connection and emotional intimacy. So in turn, when I speak of “physical vs. spiritual,” I mean “physical” as the body divorced from it’s humanity. With me so far?

The first two films cover this this topic in different ways, with the second adding layers of spiritual complexity to the initial ideas laid out by the first film (and the third film, while extremely flawed, adds a few more intriguing elements that kind of bookend the themes for me), so there’s a lot of ground to cover. But hopefully, this will clarify my take on the themes of these films and how they suddenly became some of my favorite films of all time. I was actually quite surprised I enjoyed them so much, because I kind of expected something more akin to Nightmare On Elm St., or worst case scenario the subject matter would completely repulse and offend me, but instead I found something rather sophisticated and more fitting on the shelf where I put Cappola's Dracula, Labyrinth, Legend, In The Company Of Wolves, etc. It's much more like a gothic dark fantasy series than your general 80's horror franchise. I felt like I was watching a long-lost classic that nobody told me about, and nothing has really given me the same feeling I had back when I first watched all those nostalgic cult classics. Hellraiser 2 might even be ripping Labyrinth off a tiny bit, actually. If you're only familiar with Hellraiser because of the awful sequels (movies 3 to 9), you don't really know what the originals are like at all.

So without further ado, here’s my long-winded, [TOTALLY SPOILERIFIC, YOU WERE WARNED] analysis under the cut. ;P

[Warning for discussion of difficult subject matter from the films, including implications of past child abuse, attempted sexual assault, objectification of women (intentionally depicted, not as a failing of the films), allegorical kink-themed demons, etc. In the films It’s all imo presented rather tamely/tactfully outside of the over-the-top 80′s gore, but we’re talking a bit about all of this under the cut.]

I see the first Hellraiser film as dealing specifically with the evils of selfish, consumptive physical gratification, devoid of spiritual substance/humanity. Frank opens the door to Hell through a desire to reach new pleasures, because he’d exhausted all other avenues. He’s unsatisfied with what this world can give him, so he seeks out “the pleasures of heaven or hell,” he doesn’t care which. And I feel this speaks to what is at the heart of Frank, namely nothing at all. Frank is a being that exists purely for his own physical gratification. He is a textbook sociopath; essentially empty, devoid of emotional substance, and so he seeks to fill that void in him with physical pleasure. In that endless consumption Frank dehumanizes women; they become objects who’s humanity he disregards entirely. I’ve seen people try to call Frank a somewhat “sympathetic” villain (in the literary sense, not the ~redeemable~ woobie sense) even if he’s revolting, because apparently people can relate to his (and Julia’s) dissatisfaction with the banality of life, but Frank’s dissatisfaction comes from a place of spiritual emptiness. He is disconnected from his own humanity and the humanity of others, and so he wanders endlessly in search of the next base, physical high (so uh, personally, I find it hard to relate).

This is mirrored in Julia, who abandons the “emotional” roles of wife and step-mother in order to resurrect Frank, who gave her the physical gratification she holds above all else in her life, including her own morality and the lives of others. Julia is slightly more sympathetic because her dissatisfaction seems to stem from a sense of being pushed into traditional female roles that give her no fulfillment, so there are interesting elements of women’s oppression creating a human disconnect for Julia (particularly when it comes to the ways in which men dehumanize/use her). That said, I think it’s clear from Julia’s behavior across the board that her disconnect from her humanity is exacerbated by her obsession with the physical fulfillment she finds with Frank. There is an interesting line in the film from Frank, where he describes the relationship they have as being “like love, only real,” implying that he rejects the highly spiritual, emotional concept of “love,” as though he perceives what is purely physical as the only thing of real value. For Julia, I’d imagine that this has become a truth for her, because the traditional “loving” relationships of “wife” to Larry and “mother” to Kirsty brought her no fulfillment.

The men in general of the film seek this same selfish gratification - Julia seduces men home to feed to Frank, all of them seeking to consume her. You can see this underlying consumptive menace when the first man she drags home reveals his true colors, spitting angry words under his breath at her when she starts to seem hesitant. (it is interesting that she in turn is “consuming” them; they serve a material purpose to her that has nothing to do with their personhood. She’s feeding them to Frank, who literally consumes their life-force.) Larry also reveals a consumptive side when Julia tries to distract him with sexuality; she starts to shout “no!” (at Frank, who is looming menacingly in the shadows ready to strike at Larry), and it not only takes him way too many “no’s” to actually stop kissing her, he gets indignant at Julia’s “hot and cold” behavior, as if he was owed her body and denied. There’s little regard for her needs; he does not ask if something had hurt her, if she was okay, he only says with indignation that “he just doesn’t understand her,” rather than make any attempts at understanding.

H2′s Dr. Channard is another case of a consumptive soul, single-mindedly obsessed with his pursuits. However, unlike Frank, Channard’s obsessions are, for the most part, non-sexual. Channard has a sadistic, clinical fascination with the mind, endlessly consumed with a need for knowledge and discovery. But while Channard’s obsessions are focused in a mental space, it could be said that this too is a soullessly physical pursuit; he views the mind as an object to viciously plunder, and so human beings become objects for his purposes. So, like Frank, he is a character utterly incapable of empathy, humanity. The sexualized Male Gaze is unnecessary for dehumanization.

Despite all this objectification and abuse, despite the heavy underlying sexuality in these two films, they both seriously lack any Male Gaze whatsoever. In fact, all images of sexuality are pretty much entirely given to us from the perspective of women. There is a single exception of Male Gaze bullshit in H2, where there's a woman hanging topless for no justifiable reason in Julia's murder room, though you could actually blink at the right moment and miss it entirely (and we don't see a man or monster perpetrate violence against her, it's just Julia who promptly eats her). While Clive Barker directed the first film (and is a gay man), the second film was directed by Tony Randall (who is I believe a straight man), and it's things like that one little topless moment and the mild focus on Channard's enchantment with Julia that makes H2 lean slightly further away from H1's Male Gaze-less track record. That aside, Hellraiser 1 and 2 are rather unique for their time period in this way, because it's such a hard-hitting focus on women's experience of sexuality, or how women experience male sexuality in particular, which in Hellraiser is almost always predatory, un-self-aware, or in Steve and Kyle's romantic designs on Kirsty, a little bit too self-focused and limp. This is starkly contrasted with Hellraiser 3 and pretty much all Hellraiser films after it (particularly the constant callous objectification and violence perpetrated against women in Revelations, which surprise surprise, is the most recent film. Thank's modern cinema. Don't fucking remake Hellraiser you sociopaths). Hellraiser 3 was the first film to feature Pinhead committing violence agains a woman (that fact right there? that's fucking amazing for an 80's horror franchise. Especially one featuring these themes.), who in the moment is scantily clad and just had somewhat graphic sex with J.P., and the visceral and negative reaction I had to this dumb, cringey scene is very different than any of the reactions I had to the gore of the first two films. It's nothing too hard to handle (he rips her skin off with a hook in a bad effect and then the evil pillar eats her, so it's very gory but nothing shocking), but I mention it because the first two films really stand out as horror films that managed to deal with the abuse and objectification of women as a subject without actually objectifying them or showing us gratuitous, fetishistic shock-value surrounding that abuse, the way so many contemporary horror, thriller, and crime-procedural media does.

Beyond Frank and Julia, the other half of this story deals with Kirsty and the Cenobites. First of all, Kirsty is someone directly harmed by the consumptive, selfish gratification of both Frank and Julia - with Frank, there are fairly blatant implications of child abuse that may have occurred years prior (and if not, most certainly he intends on abusing her now). As for Julia, Kirsty likely wanted a mother figure after the death of her biological mother, and she was denied this emotional connection from Julia. Later, Julia becomes a direct agent facilitating Frank’s attempt at abusing Kirsty. Julia doesn’t seem to care who is harmed in the wake of Frank’s consumption, as long as she can still receive gratification.

Kirsty is the major character who breaks this mold of reckless obsession with the physical. All of Kirsty’s dilemmas are focused in a spiritual, human place. She lost her mother years prior and is still struggling with her grief. Her relationship with Julia is strained, so any hope of a mother-daughter connection after that loss has been entirely torn asunder for her. She loves her father dearly, but she’s just gained her independence and is dealing with worry over her father. Her father wants her to play mediator in his strained relationship with Julia, who she dislikes. She’s starting out a new relationship with Steve, possibly her first adult relationship ever. She’s dealing with either a secret abuse trauma and/or traumatized over Frank’s re-appearance and physical assault of her. Where Frank and Julia are obsessively absorbed in their need for physical gratification, Kirsty deals with many layers of spiritual/emotional realities, positive and negative.

The Cenobites, as we know them in the first film, are cosmic beings that exist in extreme, grotesque excess of sensory experience, far beyond any human comprehension of “pleasure.” All they truly understand is pain. Their function is to reap the souls who intentionally open Hell’s door and enact literal eternal torture; Hell consumes souls like meat to rend and tear (an interesting juxtaposition of flesh and spirit that I’ll discuss more when I get into H2). These creatures seem almost devoid of anything recognizably human in terms of emotionality (in the first film anyway), they are Borg-like. But again, a wolf is not a wolf. These beings, and Hell itself, are supernatural allegories for the human character’s dilemmas. In this film, they are the looming threat of eternal consumption devoid of humanity, given face. The oblivion on the other side of the threshold. You invoke their presence, they come at your call.

There’s more to say about how all this plays out in the first film, particularly when it comes to how Kirsty is the second person (after Frank) to summon the Cenobites and how she uses them against her abuser, but first I want to bring up aspects that are more prominent in the second film to pull this whole picture together (the films really are a “Part 1 and Part 2,” to me).

The second film (my favorite, if you couldn’t tell) focuses much more heavily on spiritual themes. It’s set almost entirely in either a mental hospital or Hell, respectively. So immediately, we’re given two pictures, one of a place of spiritual/emotional healing, and one of eternal spiritual and physical torment, the lines between the two blurring and distorting as we get further into the story. This is important because this film seems to focus much more on the experience of psychological/emotional trauma.

“The mind is a labyrinth,” Channard says, as he artfully performs a grotesque procedure on the brain of a patient. And so too is this reflected in H2′s depiction of Hell as an endless cthonic Labyrinth, where lost souls experience hallucinatory reflections of their traumas and vices, subjected to psychological and physical punishments eternally under the watchful eye of Leviathan, the “god of flesh, hunger, and desire.”

Leviathan as an entity is a rather interesting and ambiguous being. Certainly, it is a “god” of baseness and physicality, but it’s realm is made of psychological torment, perhaps more so than it is a place of physical torture. Whether you are a “good” or “bad” person is utterly irrelevant; if you are in Hell, your soul gets reflected back to you, often with a heavy focus on traumas of your past. For Kirsty this manifests in her childhood home and images of her mother, which begin bleed and transform into an image of Julia - and perhaps it manifests in Frank’s presence. Although according to Frank, Kirsty has stumbled across “his” little corner of hell which manifests “his” punishments, the first time I watched the film (before he explained where they were) I initially was convinced that behind this second door was another reflection of Kirsty, that it was another trial for her to face. It looked to be the exact same door as her own, and well, the writhing ghostly women under sheets seemed to be an image of sexual repression or fear of sexuality (the brief glimpse of the woman who Kirsty pulls the sheet off of has her hair, as well). Is this piece of hell reflecting Frank’s punishments, or Kirsty’s fears, trauma, possible repression, etc? Or is it reflecting both simultaneously? It’s still rather ambiguous to me, actually. But I digress.

The point is that there is this heavier focus on trauma in H2, where H1 was much more tightly focused on the folly of reckless, single-minded physicality without human connection. This focus on trauma adds a whole new layer of dimension to the narrative because “pain” itself is something much more complex, here. Here, it is revealed that the Cenobites were once humans, and that humanization of these creatures that were once presented to us as allegory and pure cosmic evil is very interesting. Rather than present the Cenobites as the ultimate culmination of personalities like Frank when consumed by Hell, it’s presented as if these Cenobites were perhaps relatively innocent people. Why then, do some people become Cenobites, while others stay as tormented souls? To me, the answer is still unclear. I'm not sure there actually is an answer, beyond the whims of Leviathan. (Channard is the obviously monstrous person who was changed, but he seemed to me to have been chosen as a tool in the moment and then discarded. ) That said, “suffering” itself is more than just the experience of physical pain; the psychological nature of hell implies that this is also internal suffering, and the Cenobites aren’t just entities there to enact physical torture. They are beings that exist in this eternal, perpetual suffering of all kinds, who speak of that experience as something sublime.

The Cenobites spend the majority of their time in both films popping up periodically to speak to Kirsty, from ominous threats of eternal torture, to invitation of joining them, to mocking her with insinuations that some part of her wants their world. For Kirsty, they are demons that reflect back to her all those fears and repressions, all her internal confusion and torment, which is what they spend most of their time doing in the first two films. In Hellraiser 3, there's more of this element of Cenobites as psychological reflections: Pinhead acts as a tempter, using the psyches of the humans he encounters to ensnare souls, which is why with J.P. he's literally consuming women, and for Terri, he switches gears to be the voice of female vengeance.

Earlier in the film, we are given multiple references to fairy tales, usually as used by older adults to mock and belittle Kirsty. The detective mocks her for making up fairy tales about “demons,” and Julia mocks her by comparing Kirsty to Snow White and herself to the Wicked Stepmother/Evil Queen. These side characters demoralize Kirsty in her idealistic efforts to rescue her father from Hell and fight back against forces much larger than herself that a more cynical person could scarcely imagine overcoming. Later, quite similarly to the west wing sequence in Beauty and the Beast (I think coincidentally so, Disney’s BATB came out a few years afterwards), Kirsty explores a dangerous place (Channard’s home) and finds an old, faded picture of a man who she recognizes as the monster she has previously encountered. Ultimately, Kirsty saves herself and another girl through an act almost unbelievably idealistic and naive, especially for such a dark story. She finds a way to transform a monster back into a human being. This was a victory won not with physical violence, but through humanity; a fairy-tale-esque triumph that flew in the face of those who tried to demoralize or deny Kirsty’s reality. Furthermore, this victory is not about the tragedy of Pinhead, but the triumph of humanity and empathy overcoming darkness.

There are a few expressions of human connection and empathy in these two films, like the care between Kirsty and her father, or the attraction between Kirsty and Steve, Kyle’s attraction and care for Kirsty, or Tiffany holding Kirsty as she cries over her father, But for me there was never quite a moment as striking and emotionally raw than when Kirsty and Spencer are looking at each other across the darkness once his human face is revealed. It feels like very artful, deliberate visual contrast to the circumstances and surroundings. But I digress.

So to clarify this picture: Kirsty is faced with monsters personifying everything that represented her trauma and fears, etc. They represented all-consuming physicality without humanity, they represented the things in herself she may have tried to suppress (sexuality, trauma, etc.). Monsters that wanted her to be as consumed by their world as they were. She then utilizes her demons to destroy her abuser, and later recognizes the humanity in her demons and transforms them, frees them from their spiritual and physical eternal torment, and in turn is saved from the same fate, herself.

The third film (which I enjoy despite the fact that it is admittedly a raging trash fire) features a cast of characters all dealing with similar situations. J.P. is our endlessly consumptive user, and Joey and Terri are two women dealing with spiritual trauma. Joey through the loss of her father, and Terri through a broken home life and later abuse at the hands of J.P. The reason why I include the third film in this is because of those additional elements and the insight it gives into Pinhead’s human self, Captain Spencer, and how he perfectly bookends the narrative. Spencer is another person who once opened the box, but it was never clear why he did so in the second film. In the third film, he explains that he was trying to escape spiritual suffering (war trauma/PTSD) through physical means ("forbidden pleasures,” aka kink). At some point he came across the box and opened it. While there are plenty of monstrous men in all three Hellraiser films, and Pinhead himself is a literal monster bent on taking any soul who opens the box with some form of desire in their hearts, my take away from H3 was not that Spencer himself was ever an abuser like Frank or J.P. (and indeed his behavior when lucidly himself in H2 and 3 is decidedly in immediate defense of women he cares about, up to and including two counts of total self-sacrifice), but that Spencer was perhaps pushing his explorations into unsafe realms of self-harming. He was punishing himself, and was thus made into a cosmic punisher of others by Leviathan. So, unlike Frank or Channard or J.P., people who are susceptible to the box/Hell’s temptations because of their need to endlessly consume, Spencer was susceptible because he was so effected by spiritual suffering that he turned towards unhealthy physical means of escape. In my mind, there is something in this idea of self-punishment/self-blame that is also potentially true of, say, Kirsty. How else would she be genuinely susceptible to the box (beyond basic desire having opened it initially), if not that she was teetering on a similar edge, herself? (However, I think perhaps her darkness also veers into a streak of sadistic vengefulness.)

This actually makes the extended cut of the H6 Pinhead/Kirsty reuinion scene a lot more tragic and distressing for me, because underneath all the bullshit, there’s this subtext of Kirsty still running from her Hell and yet still encountering consumptive, abusive men and being pushed off the deep end into untempered vengefulness and violence. And Spencer, who once was freed by her and in turn sacrificed himself to free her from Hell, trapped once more in his monsterous form and obsessing instead over dragging Kirsty down with him to be as endlessly consumed by her pain as he is within his own. No thanks on that grimdark noise, H6. ...but fucking wow, tho. If you've seen Hellseeker but have never seen the extended cut of this scene, I'm linking it Right Here. Warning for...just...ugh. Badly written infuriating creepy grimdark bullshit that genuinely sounds like a bad fanfiction writer wrote it. But at least you have that one moment right at the end where you can hear Spencer's voice come through to help her get free.

In conclusion, I think Hellraiser is a story about, well, Hell. But Hell not as nebulous place where the really bad people go, but Hell as an allegory for eternal spiritual suffering, that absolutely anyone can reach and be effected by once a gateway is opened for them. Particularly so when it comes to reckless physical indulgence, or consumption, or unsafe vice overtaking one’s humanity to others, or towards one’s self. So ultimately, the “moral of the story,” if you’d like to call it that, is that in order to protect one’s self from being consumed by spiritual suffering, one must cherish and cultivate their own humanity, and in the case of people who have been traumatized and/or victimized, one must fight back against the consuming force of that spiritual suffering through confronting the hell that exists within. Sometimes that doesn’t mean blasting the darkness away and ignoring it’s existence, it means reminding the darkness that it is only human.

[Regarding the content of the films, feel free to message me if you decide to watch them but you feel you need a total break-down of what to prepare for.]

#Hellraiser #This is my meta post for this weekend #some of you are not as keen on DW or are on it less often I know #so here you go my dudes #if you see me around too often call me out on it #Horror #Meta

7 notes · View notes

swipestream · 6 years

Text

My Little Pony: Beyond Good and Evil

This is a guest post written by Alex Stump:

My two little brothers have been watching My Little Pony for a long time now. I watched a couple episodes (and also the unholy spin-off series Equestria Girls) and I’ll be 100% honest…My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic is a really good show. But don’t get the wrong idea, I’m not coming out as a Brony. I, as an 18-year-old man have better things to do then obsessing over a show made for seven year olds. Which really fascinates me, what is it about this kid’s series that attracts so many young adults? It’s a question that has been going around since the show premiered and the most widely accepted questions/theories I’ve seen are:

A) People like MLP for the same reason people like Star Trek or Firefly.

B) These people had terrible childhoods and they watch MLP to experience the childhood they never had.

C) These people had awesome childhoods and watch MLP because it gives them a sense of nostalgia.

And D) People watch MLP because they’re mentally handicapped.

These answers have some truth to them but I find them to be mostly flawed…So how about I give you my own answer to the question. Sure, everyone has his or her own reason for watching, but I think there’s a unifying reason why. You see I believe the reason why MLP is so popular and why it stands out in the entertainment industry is because the show has a “thing”.

What is this “thing” you ask? Well, this “thing” is very important to fiction. It goes all the way back to ancient times. It was prevalent in the 20th century but sadly is being abused and forgotten in the 21st century. Let me give you some examples:

(Example 1) The Adventures of Robin Hood is a 1938 film staring Errol Flynn and tells the tale of Robin Hood and his merry men. This movie has great action scenes,

good acting, amazing sets, and is quite possibly the happiest go lucky movie I’ve ever seen. Seriously, this film is so happy I dare you to watch it without smiling. Robin and his merry men are tons of fun to watch. They’re funny, smart and most of all virtuous. The women are great too, they’re modest, beautiful and don’t complain about the traditional family structure. Just about every character in the film has an enjoyable personality. We see medieval society portrayed in a mostly positive light, which is nice to see. Even religion gets a good light and in the end everyone lives happily ever after.

The movie’s really good; it’s a beloved classic for a reason. (Seriously, this movie’s good. If you haven’t watched it already, WATCH IT!!!)

Now let’s talk about the 2010 Robin Hood movie directed by Ridley Scott. This film isn’t what you’ll call happy. Robin Hood is not a righteous nobleman but a lying criminal who desserts the holy crusade and fights the evil stereotypical French. The women are awful, the church and medieval society are both portrayed in a negative light and the rest of the movie is just dark, gritty and forgettable. Guess what? The movie wasn’t well received, with critics like Roger Ebert calling the movie “innocence and joy draining away from movies.” Now there’s a new Robin Hood movie coming out this year and apparently it’s yet another dark and gritty take on the Robin Hood story. Just what the masses wanted, am I right? (Example 2) Superman! Who doesn’t know the man of steel? He is the most well known superhero in the DCU. His origin story’s an all-time classic; he is a common role model for kids and adults, his sidekicks and super villains are good. Most importantly, he saves kittens stuck on trees. Even if you don’t like Superman, nobody can deny the cultural significance he has all over the world. He is more then just a superhero, he is the superhero…In the new Superman movies however, and he is anything but a superhero. In the DC cinematic multiverse, Superman’s a nihilist, he fails to save people, kills his enemies, and lets his emotions get the better of him. He treats his life as a superhero not as a duty, but a curse. When Superman (spoiler alert!) dies in Batman v Superman nobody gives an anti-life equation, because that guy on screen is not the man who has everything. What happened to the Superman?

(Final Example): Star Wars is one of the greatest space operas ever made. A movie with amazing characters, a classic story and groundbreaking special effects. They’re movies that pay homage to Akira Kurosawa and the serials from the 30s and 40s. A story that borrows from East Asian philosophy and the archetypes of Joseph Campbell. A story with a great amount of historical symbolism, ranging from WW2, the French Revolution and the Roman Empire. Yet with all of the complexity and metaphor, the original Star Wars trilogy (and to some extent the prequels) is nothing more than simple kids movies…the new films by Disney I wouldn’t call simple. The new movies lazily rehash the plots from the original films but without the symbolism and archetypes. The new heroes are either too perfect or too flawed, there’s pretty obvious political messages floating around and all the original characters we know and love have forgotten everything they learned from Jedi and they all die. Don’t complain though, because filmmaker JJ Abrams will call you sexist for not liking the movies. (It makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes.)

So, what exactly is this “thing” that My Little Pony, Star Wars, Robin Hood, and Superman have in common that their modern day remakes and sequels lack?

Heroism. No, really. Heroism or just simply, the heroic character is the most common archetype in storytelling and the most important. People naturally draw themselves towards heroes because they represent some kind of greater good, whether it be, faith, bravery, hope, charity and yes…friendship. When done correctly, the heroic character becomes a timeless icon. I mean look at my examples again. Superman is good not because of his superpowers but because of his character. Superman’s an immigrant, a stranger who uses his alien powers to help others. He stands for truth, justice, and the American way. No matter how bad the situation is, he never kills people. (For more on this subject, watch the animated movie Superman vs. the Elite or read the comic book it’s based on.)

Robin Hood (from The Adventures of Robin Hood) is a great character not just for his romantic, charismatic personality but also for what he’s fighting for. He fights an illegitimate authority and wants to return King Richard back to the throne of England. He believes him to be the rightful king, and he will sacrifice everything in order to get him back. Robin Hood knows he’ll bring a good, just government to England.

And Star Wars is a classic tale of good defeating evil, growing up into adulthood, redemption, and a tale of low-lifes becoming great heroes. Let’s look at Han Solo for a minute. Sure people talk about how cool Han Solo is like how he shot-first but in my opinion that’s not what makes him an amazing character. In the beginning of A New Hope, he’s a jerk to Luke. He doesn’t believe in the Force. He’s not a man of honor and only cares about money. However he slowly starts to care about Luke and Leia and discovers faith in the Force and after going through so much trouble and getting everything he wanted. He comes backs to save Luke, allowing him to destroy the Death Star. Despite not being a man of the book he is still a hero inside. Which if you really think about the real hero in the original trilogy it is Han, not Luke.

People look up to these heroes because they inspire us. Not to put on capes, overwears and conduct vigilantism, no, but to never give up hope, to always take up virtue and to know that good always triumphs…which really lacks in modern day entertainment. A lot of modern storytellers don’t understand heroism and don’t know why it’s so important to many classics. The new Superman movies suck because they don’t have any of Superman’s trademark heroism. Like I said, he kills the bad guys, he fails to save people and loses control of his emotions. That’s not a hero. The new Star Wars movies suck because all of the new characters are these god-like Neanderthals who have no reliability that made the original characters great. No all of them are sad old people who don’t learn anything. In fact, many remakes and sequels of classic stories are sad in tone when their originals were not-why is this? Well we all know why, it’s all because of the postmodern viewpoint that heroism is a fantasy and in real life everything that makes a hero doesn’t exist. Such a worldview is really bad and it shows in many original stories today. I mean look around you, fiction’s so dark it’s become commonplace for a piece of entertainment to take place in a post-apocalyptic world or dystopia where all authority is bad, all hope is lost, God doesn’t exist and the only thing that’s metaphysical is politics. There aren’t any heroes, only cynical, morally ambiguous, deeply flawed characters with little to no sympathy. When the day is saved and the bad guy is defeated it usually ends on a very bitter note like nothing was every achieved. Does that sound entertaining to you?

Plus, when you get right down to it, a lot of these stories are shockingly bad. Many fields of entertainment aren’t being made by talented people but by executives who only care about money. Their writing is lazy, quality over substance, completely mindless with characters that are either one dimensional to two-dimensional, which writers try to hide it by making them inherently flawed. Now an inherently flawed characters is perfectly normal as long is there’s some sort of payoff or balance, However tons of writers today fail on both, causing audiences to feel alienated from the protagonist because the story literally gave them reasons not care about his or her struggles. Mix that all up with a problematic imagination and an unsubtle political agenda and you get a match made in limbo. Again, a lot of these problems come from this false interpretation of heroes not being real. Of course heroes are real. Anyone can be a hero. We enjoy fictional heroes because they remind us that good exist; If there is no hero, then there’s no value, if there’s no value then people don’t care and if people don’t care then the story is forgotten and then lost in time. I know every story can be different In form but the most popular formula is about heroes saving the day which is being desecrated in the modern era…

However-and I can’t believe I’m about to say this (or write this) My Little Pony is the exception. In the show, heroism isn’t ignored or perverse but accepted. The characters do heroic acts and they’re celebrated for it. Almost every character is nice, trustworthy and never cynical or morally ambiguous. The world they inhabit isn’t nasty, but a beautiful place, one that’ll make you wish you lived there. The show promotes many positive messages with a huge focus on friendship being the best ever, and no matter how dark the show gets (and believe me the show can get surprisingly dark at times) none of the heroes give up hope and they all lives happily ever after.

Plus, the show is well made. It’s not created by greedy executives but by talented people who’ve been working on cartoons for decades. The dialogue is funny, most of the episodes are smart, the characters are well-developed, the music and animation is surprisingly great and the show’s smart enough to not go P.C. Compare this to other television shows like The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory, The Handmaids Tale and every show on the CW, MLP is one of the few TV shows that’s actually good. Wouldn’t you agree?

I think the reason why so many young adults watch MLP is because many of them are so tired and fed up with how much fiction has merged with postmodernism and choose to watch this simple kids show, Not only for being smart and entertaining, but also celebrating something many of them haven’t seen in a long time…and that’s a story of good people doing good things…But hey, that’s just a theory! A game-wait a minute? What’d you guys think? Was my theory on the brony phenomenon absolutely right, absolutely wrong or was it missing a couple of points?

My Little Pony: Beyond Good and Evil published first on https://medium.com/@ReloadedPCGames

0 notes