#its an excellent movie. however the only people i know to have seen it are: 1. my parents 2. me and my siblings
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
my parents raised me to be incredibly lame but very confident in that and so now my entire self esteem is balanced on the idea that very lame people can also be very cool i.e. every single member of mcr
#.txt#billie joe armstrong also that guys a massive dweeb who knits and green day covered that thing you do which is from a movie of the same#title and is a movie that i grew up on and fucking No One cool has watched#its an excellent movie. however the only people i know to have seen it are: 1. my parents 2. me and my siblings#3. my moms programmer best friend who collects/rides unicycles as a hobby and his girlfriend (wife?) who collected monster high dolls#for a while and i think had a youtube channel doing little stories with them back in the day#i think theyre great. they are objectively massive dweebs however
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
Gundam Journey Recap 2024
Last year’s recap: Here
Another year of Gundam Brainrot. This time I watched more stuff because I wasn’t watching Zeta for 8+ months like last year. Here’s a very summarized opinion on everything I watched. Once again, take my ratings with a grain of salt.
Zeta Gundam: It took me an eternity to watch and I still want to write some essays about it. I get the feeling that I need to rewatch it in order to completely understand it. I’ll be honest, it was a pain to watch but it’s the UC Gundam series I’m still thinking about long after I finished it. I love Kamille, and Char/Quattro elicits in me the same reaction that many of you guys have towards Reigen Arataka. You’re gonna hate me, but that ending was amazing, one of the greatest payoffs I’ve ever seen. On the other hand, it was an absolute mess with women (a very interesting mess but sometimes it got annoying).
Enough amount of Char. 4/5
Gundam ZZ: I get why some people don’t like it, still it was a very fun ride. Unlike Zeta, I was able to watch this in a month and a half (look, I’m very slow at watching series, so this is a record time for me). It was like an 80’s Saturday morning cartoon so it gave me a lot of nostalgia. The first part was weak, but once they get to Earth and the opening song changes from “Anime Ja Nai “ to “Silent Voice”, it gets really good. I also enjoyed most of the characters.
Char only appears on the opening. 3/5
Char’s Counterattack: Guys, this movie was so hyped for me that once I finally, finally, FINALLY got to watch it I… didn’t felt much. I mean, it’s ok, I guess, and Char and Amuro are very Divorced. I don’t know, I expected a bigger catharsis, or to finally understand Char or get obsessed with him and Amuro and it just didn’t happen for me. It’s good, but I didn’t feel the same things I felt with G-Witch or with the Zeta finale.
Too much Char. By the end of the film I wished that he was punched more. 3.5/5
Hathaway’s Flash: Somehow I enjoyed it more than CCA, and it really got me interested in Tomino’s writing. Visually, it's good, and the “char clone” from the movie is fascinating. I’m not telling you more, only that this is the aftermath of Char and Amuro’s actions in CCA. Also the animation and character design is top notch. Hope that we get a second movie soon.
Excellent Char successor. 3.5/5
Gundam F91: It’s a total disaster but it’s very entertaining to watch. The first half of the movie was really good, but then everything happens so much, we have a character change sides and die in less than 10 minutes, and there’s a lot of details that aren’t explained. The protagonist is bland and no one gets too much character development. It’s kind of my guilty pleasure, because it’s obvious that they tried to cram a whole series in a 2 hour movie and they failed, but the try was worth it. Makes me wonder what It’ll be like if the story had reached its full potential. The character and mechanical design, along with the music and animation is pretty good. I would recommend it only for that.
There’s a bad Darth Vader knockoff and the actual Char clone looks like a pirate. 3/5
Gundam G no Reconguista Movies: I watched these when I got sick during summer vacation. They’re a wild ride, just like F91, everything is happening so much all the time and there’s barely an explanation. It’s a very curious experience because Tomino has A Vision he has to convey and he doesn’t mind if the plot and characters are sacrificed to achieve it. The characters had a cute design but there was not much to them, it was cartoony like ZZ, but somehow ZZ had more character depth, so it’s not exactly what I was expecting, but it was fun.
Hated the Char clone, however. 3/5
(At this point I became more obsessed with Tomino than with Gundam, I didn’t really trust that anyone else could write a good UC Gundam story besides him -I’m conflicted about The Origin-.)
Gundam: Requiem for Vengeance: Looked like a stereotypical American military story at first, but I liked where the plot went. I still think it’s funny that the protagonist is your typical soldier who lost their spouse, but this time it’s a woman. Who’s also a mom!!! (Yes, this is a very important plot point. Unrelated but it left me once again daydreaming about a story where Elnora was a Gundam protagonist). The ending fails if you’ve watched ZZ. It’s not bad, but you can skip this one.
No Char :( 3/5
Encounters in Space: One night I wanted to treat myself, and went straight to the 3rd Gundam compilation movie. This is my favorite arc from 0079 and the adaptation didn’t disappoint. Completely recommend it.
Right amount of Char. 5/5
Gundam ALC Encounter: An animation short that was projected on the walls of a shopping mall near the Nu Gundam statue in Fukuoka. Basically Lala Suneh reincarnates and becomes a lesbian tiktoker while Amuro and Char punch each other.
I didn’t like Char’s hair here but Lala has a girlfriend. 10/5
Gundam 0080/War in the Pocket: Started like your typical late 80’s kiddie adventure movie (it even sounds like one), ended like a Shakespearean tragedy. I really liked that the conflict wasn’t that big. It’s a more intimate kind of story, and the anti war message is effective. On the other hand, it’s hard for me to believe that the Side authorities just left a Zaku lying there for days, but whatever. Best Christmas special.
No Char but we don’t need him. 4/5
Incomplete series:
Gundam Build Fighters season 1: (first 10 episodes) Looks like a very fun shonen that reminds me heavily of Angelic Layer. However it sucks when it comes to female characters which is unforgivable for me considering that so far Gundam is one of the few shonen/seinen franchises that’s actually pretty decent about women (yeah, even Zeta). I’ll watch the rest once I’m able to turn my brain off for a few hours.
SD Gundam shorts: Some of them are pretty funny but they also suck when it comes to the female characters. I liked the shorts where the mobile suits are in the sengoku era.
Turn A Gundam: (25 episodes so far) Gave it another try after watching the first UC Gundam series and I absolutely love it. The series is super chill, it’s kind of my confort show right now. I really like Loran. So far it looks like it’ll be a 5/5.
Gunplas built this year:
G-Witch Kits: Full Mechanics Aerial, SDEX Aerial, SDW Heroes Aerial Onmitsu (I like Aerial), Suletta Mercury, Gundam Calibarn.
UC Kits: SDEX Nu Gundam (currently painting it), Gundam MK II, Semi-transparent HaroPla.
It’s still a pretty fun hobby. I found out that the SD kits are perfect to begin practicing painting and customization, so I’ll be trying that out. I also want to try out some RG and MG kits if I’m able to buy them.
TBR List:
So I haven’t read much of the Gundam manga and novels yet. But there’s stuff I really want to read:
*Beltorchika’s Children *The Hathaway Novels *Crossbone Gundam *Vanadis Heart *That one G-Witch spin-off *Char’s Daily Life (I would like to read the whole thing this time).
If you have more recs let me know. :)
#gundam#mobile suit gundam#zeta gundam#char aznable#char's counterattack#gundam zz#gundam f91#gunpla#gundam hathaway#gundam requiem for vengeance#turn a gundam#gundam g reco#gundamblogging
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
There Are 4 Genders
Note: like any good essay on gender, this post contains discussion of rape, transphobia, and racism.
What Is Gender
Gender is axis of power and oppression, like class. Unlike class, which is one's relation to production and labour, what gender fundamentally is is much less clear. Is it another form of division of labour? A feeling? An essential and fixed aspect of one's soul that is determined by God? I think gender is fundamentally about one's position within/relative to the household. This is what makes it different from class: you can easily talk about the class of a household [1] (e.g. rich family, low-income household) but talking about the gender of a household is nonsensical - the gender is contained inside of it.
When we view gender as arising from the conditions of the household, we can begin doing actual analysis. In this analysis, I will say things like "women are meek and obedient," which obviously sounds very bad, so let me clarify what I mean. I am not saying everyone who uses the label of "woman" is meek and obedient, or that they should be, or that they're not women if they're assertive and oppositional. I'm not really trying to talk about people at all - I'm talking about the cultural archetype of womanhood, about Woman and not actual women. I do, however, mean to imply that differing from that archetype does make one less of a woman. There's no single aspect of deviation from Woman that disqualifies one from womanhood, but it all adds up - if you're loud and assertive and tall and don't wear makeup and have stubble, you are not really going to be treated as a woman in public. As someone who's been a freshly-out transfem in that position, I think we do a disservice to people in that spot by insisting that womanhood is just about whether or not you identify with it - you know that you're being seen and treated as a man. Gender is something like a social role, a social position, a performance - and as such it cannot be done alone. Other people need to be willing to go along with your gender in order for you to be able to do it (and vice-versa can try to impose a gender onto you). If your friends don't treat you as you ask to be treated then they're shitty friends, but for strangers you will need to align yourself to these archetypes. Going off of this, I want to define a narrative-ish structure, with 4 roles, that I think gives a clearer understanding of gender in the US than the traditional 2-gender model. Also, like the 2-gender model, changing your role or escaping entirely is possible.
The Genders
I want to frame the genders through a storybook metaphor. The first three are familiar (and taken loosely from the Karpman drama triangle): the Prince, the Princess, and the Monster. Monsters are a threat to Princesses, who therefore need a brave and strong Prince to protect them. In return, the Princess tends to the Prince's wounds, and probably does his housework and stuff. In general, Princesses trade their autonomy for protection. You've seen this structure a million times: it's the damsel in distress; it's Link, Zelda, and Ganon; it's every Disney princess movie before 1995; it's The Birth of a Nation. My addition to this is the fourth gender, the Treasure (also sometimes referred to as Trash). The Prince gets the Treasure as his reward for slaying the Monster. Princesses are rescued, Treasure is merely taken. Treasure is to be defended only to the extent it's convient, the Prince has no moral duties to the Treasure like he does to the Princess. Treasure is something to be used (mostly by the Prince but sometimes also by the Princess) and then discarded when it has outlived its usefulness. The name is rather ironic, because Treasure is not in fact treasured.
So how does this fairytale relate to the household? In Hortense Spillers' absolutely excellent essay "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: An American Grammar Book," she presents an analysis of the gender that enslaved black women experienced. Although slave communities certainly developed kinship groups, i.e. households, these did not resemble the white households with the Mother and Father - and these black women certainly did not receive the "benefits of a patriarchilized female gender." Spillers describes this as a "degendering" of black women, but I wanted to interpret it differently, as the assignment and not the removal of a gender. So these four genders represent, roughly, the white man who owns the plantation, his white wife, the male slaves he fears an uprising from, and the female slaves he both works and rapes. In 2024 these relations have decreased in intensity, but are absolutely still there, and I hope this model captures the essence of that relation that has managed to survive until present day. However, I think this model is also applicable outside just white-black gender relations, and I'll give examples as I go over the genders in individual detail.
The Prince
The Prince is very close to the 2-gender notion of "man," and is usually a "he." The Prince is sort of the default, the "unmarked" category, the protagonist and therefore the least interesting. The expectations on Princes are just to slay Monsters and protect Princesses. However, the choice of Prince defines which household it is we're talking about. Since we're defining gender relative to households, different households in different cultures can assign the different genders to the same individual (more on this when we get to Monsters). The clearest examples of Princes in a given society are going to be the high-class men. The Prince is the Family Man, the Gentleman, etc.
The Princess
The Princess is, correspondingly, close to the 2-gender "woman," and is usually "she." However, if we view the autonomy-for-protection trade as the essence of Princesshood, then children are also Princesses in our culture. And like for Princes, the clearest examples of Princesses are high-class women - in the US in the 60s, for example, housewives are "more Princess" than working women. Princesses are proper victims - they are the people who have claim to "innocence", and any wrong against them must be punished. The Princess is the Proper Lady, the Good Wife and the Good Mother.
The Monster
The Monster is the dangerous Other. I like "Monster" as a term specifically because of its gender ambiguity - there's many male monsters in fiction, but also the notion of (and theory about) the "monstrous feminine," e.g. witches. Monsters can be aiming to kill, or kidnap, or rape, or more nebulously "corrupt" Princesses - they're Monsters all the same. Monsters can also pose a threat to the Prince or not, but it's not particularly relevant either way.
"Monstering" is classically done along race lines - Black "superpredators," Latin American immigrants "bringing crime," Yellow Peril, or the recent false accusation against Hamas of mass rape. However, it works with any type of foreign-ness/Other-ness/outside threat even without race, as in the anti-German WW1 poster above. Monstering is also used at home, e.g. against queerness - the constant accusations of pedophilia against queer people of all stripes, the "predatory lesbian," and the gay and trans panic legal defenses (which are some of the most revealing examples of what Monstering really is - an accusation in order to justify unlimited violence). The Monstrous feminine is understood in this framework as women who refuse to be Princesses or Treasure, and are therefore called witches, baby-killers, etc. Finally, I feel like I'm seeing an increase in placing mad people as Monsters - we know racism and homophobia are bad now, so tiktok instead embraces the dark triad and the view that there are certain types of people - narcissists, psychopaths, BPDemons, etc. - who are inherently dangerous and evil, who are Monsters. There are no longer any visual markers of Monstrosity - it could be anyone, so watch out, stay scared, and keep doing all that shit about marking your car so human traffickers don't target you.
The Treasure
The Treasure is the Other defanged and brought into the household to be used - a human with no rights, who others owe no duties to. The pronoun for Treasure is "it." I get the alternate name "Trash" from Porpentine Charity Heartscape's Hot Allostatic Load. She describes Trash as "the hyper-marginalized among the marginalized, the Omelas kids, the marked for death." Morphodyke on tumblr (screenshot for non-tumblrinas) describes the Trashing of transfems as "a systematic pattern of abuse applied to a small sacrificial portion of the population to create a class of women with no claim to community or personhood, who will never be defended or avenged, who can be safely sunk into the attrition of patriarchy's darker desires." Trash is the most materially straightforward gender - it is made up of people who are so marginalized - so close to social death or so unable to independently get the physical resources needed for survival - that they have no choice but to do whatever more-privileged people (i.e. Princes and Princesses) ask of them.
Unlike Monster, Treasure is an actual role people play, and generally with some level of awareness that that's what they are. The Treasure is part of the household - as a slave, a servant, a whore. Nobody is afraid of Treasure. A Treasure can never be considered a "victim" either - it was not innocent to begin with; when something bad happens to it, it had no right to expect better. The gendered expectation of Treasure is complete, unconditional meekness and obedience, and any deviation is harshly punished. This punishment includes both straightforward social & physical violence, but also, in the extreme, Monstering the Treasure, i.e. turning them into the type of Monster who is a Monster everywhere. This is the only place a Treasure "has left to fall," but it's quite a long fall, and so the Treasure endures its harsh role in order to avoid that fall.
Examples of Treasure are less straightforward than for other genders - survival sex workers and black women are the only groups that comes to mind as near-uniformly Treasure, and for the latter it's becoming less and less universal as the economic position of black people in the US improves. Many trans women are Treasure, and in general the more axes someone is marginalized along, the more likely they are to be Treasure - a poor disabled black trans lesbian is almost certainly going to be Treasure, even if none of those categories on their own are more than 50% Treasure. Another factor is the degree to which someone is the odd one out, the potential outcast, within their community - the only person of color or gay kid in a small town (or highschool). Also, as Monsters are associated with madness, so is Treasure with "mental illness" - the "broken" person who directs it all inward, who has no self-worth [2], who accepts whatever their partner does because they've been told nobody else could ever love them.
Pairs
I think terms in a system are best defined by their contrast with other terms, so here's a rundown through all the pairs and their differences and relations.
Prince-Princess
This relationship is the most well-tread ground. Most white feminist theory and praxis is focused on the dynamics between Princes and Princesses, and trying to improve the lot of Princesses. This has worked to the extent that the dramatic protector-protected dynamic I described above seems hyperbolic when compared to real relationships in 2024. Still, I focus on that specific aspect, protector-protected, because I think it is at the heart of the "contract" of heterosexual relationships. The idea of a strong woman who can protect herself is getting more and more popular, but even still I have yet to see a man in real life or fiction say he wants a wife who can protect him. This notion of victimhood and protection is what animates the entire narrative.
One aspect of this protection that I want to stress is that it is specifically protection from Monsters. While we now (hopefully) think of the wifebeater as a type of Monster disguised as a Prince, that is a very recent change brought about by feminist activism, and it still remains a fact that abusers are not social outcasts or psychopaths, but perfectly normal and well-adjusted Princes. The historical definition of rape provides the clearest example of this: the notion that a husband can rape his wife, i.e. that marital rape is rape, is very new. When your grandparents got married, your grandfather having sex with your grandmother against her will would not have been considered "rape" or any other type of legal or social crime[3]. Rape has been considered a crime historically not because it is nonconsensual sex - that is allowed for the Prince! - but because it is a Monster taking what should belong to the Prince. Rape is something exclusively done by Monsters to Princesses.
Prince-Monster
In the types of wars, the narrative that "the enemy is coming to take our gold and rape our Princesses" was often quite true, as wartime sexual violence was quite common historically (the word "rape" was originally a synonym for "pillage"). However, this narrative would be true on both sides of the war. In Greek society, the Greeks would be Princes and the Trojans were Monsters, and vice versa in Troy. And both sides would be using rape as a weapon of war, but from e.g. the Greek standpoint, the Trojan women were Treasure, and so nothing a Greek/Prince did to them would demean his Princely honor in any way. However, the same behavior from the Trojans/Monsters towards the Princesses of Greece was exactly what justified calling them Monsters. The difference between Princes and Monsters is not in what acts of violence they commit, but who they are violent towards[4].
Prince-Treasure
As we have established, Princes may do whatever they want to Treasure, and suffer no consequences for it. The only thing I have to add is how it can make a Treasure come to function as a sort of "laboratory." Treasure has a body like that of a Prince or Princess, but it doesn't have the rights they do, it isn't owed any dignity. Therefore, questions/experiments which would be too rude or violative for a Prince to ask/do to a Princess may be answered on Treasure. This applies to both adolescents learning about sexuality and to adults working in biology labs. For the latter, think of Josef Mengele or Henrietta Lacks.
Princess-Monster
The Monster aims to take or corrupt the Princess - Princesses are always victims, and Monsters are always perpetrators. This is the social fiction woven by gender, and has no relation to what people who are Monsters actually do to people who are Princesses. Rather, the justice systems built on the narrative of protecting Princesses from Monsters are social systems enabling Princesses to persecute Monsters. The archetypical example of this is the murder of Emmett Till - a single Princess's accusation of whistling "justified" the torture and murder of a 14-year-old boy. White women's tears - i.e. Princesses' tears - should be considered an offensive and not a defensive weapon (although not one that can be turned against Princes).
Princess-Treasure
The difference between Princesses and Treasure is rather similar to the classic Madonna-whore divide, the good wife vs the whore on the side. This can lead to the Madonna-whore complex when combined with the societal view of sex as "violation" or "dirtying" - Princes are only allowed to inflict violence upon Treasure, not on Princesses, and so if sex is a kind of violence then the Prince will only be able to get it up for Treasure and not for his lovely Princess wife. Even if not to the point of a "complex," the Prince will always have sides of himself that he only shows to Treasure, because he needs to charm the Princess, to be nice to her, to treat her right. Only with a Treasure can he vent his "darker desires," and act without pretense or restraint.
Transitioning from Treasure to Princess is possible, and I think it can be one thing what people can mean when they say they find femininity empowering. In the two-gender model, this makes no sense, as femininity = woman = disempowered gender. But with four genders, Princesses are genuinely more powerful than Treasure - they have rights and powers that Treasure does not. To transition from Treasure to Princess is to assert that you have worth and to demand rights, dignity, and respect. Therefore, if being feminine lets someone move from Treasure to Princess, then their femininity is empowering them. And I think femininity is a part of that Treasure-to-Princess transition, e.g. becoming a "proper lady" instead of a "tramp," or trans women being able to pass.
The relationship between a Princess and a Treasure in the same household is the most interesting and novel part of this entire model. In "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe," Spillers analyzes a section from the autobiographical slave narrative Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, by Harriet Jacobs (writing under the pseudonym Linda Brent). During the section in question, Jacobs is regularly being raped by her "master," which arouses the jealousy of his wife. That wife then proceeds to rape Jacobs herself (probably, anything in this book about sex is highly subtextual because it was published in 1861). To quote Spillers' analysis at length (emphasis mine):
If the testimony of Linda Brent/Harriet Jacobs is to be believed, the official mistresses of slavery's "masters" constitute a privileged class of the tormented, if such contradiction can be entertained [Brent 29-35]. Linda Brent/Harriet Jacobs recounts in the course of her narrative scenes from a "psychodrama," opposing herself and "Mrs. Flint," in what we have come to consider the classic alignment between captive woman and free. Suspecting that her husband, Dr. Flint, has sexual designs on the young Linda (and the doctor is nearly humorously incompetent at it, according to the story line), Mrs. Flint assumes the role of a perambulatory nightmare who visits the captive woman in the spirit of a veiled seduction. ... Mrs. Flint enacts a male alibi and prosthetic motion that is mobilized at night, at the material place of the dream work. In both male and female instances, the subject attempts to inculcate his or her will into the vulnerable, supine body. Though this is barely hinted on the surface of the text, we might say that Brent, between the lines of her narrative, demarcates a sexuality that is neuter-bound, inasmuch as it represents an open vulnerability to a gigantic sexualized repertoire that may be alternately expressed as male/female. Since the gendered female exists for the male, we might suggest that the ungendered female—in an amazing stroke of pansexual potential—might be invaded/raided by another woman or man.
In the terminology of this essay, that final line would be "Since the Princess exists for the Prince, we might suggest that the Treasure—in an amazing stroke of pansexual potential—might be invaded/raided by a Princess or Prince." In short, Princesses can and do "use" Treasure like a Prince would: to vent frustrations, to use as a laboratory, to express "darker desires." A lot of things people ascribe to "the weak finding someone weaker to pick on" is Princess-on-Treasure violence. There is also a unique form of violence that only Princesses can do to Treasure - they can turn the Treasure into a Monster. Princess tears can be weaponized against both Monsters and Treasure, and Princesses can gain social capital by doing so: every time a Princess makes an accusation she emphasizes her own perpetual innocence and victimhood. By doing so she is conforming to the expectations of her gender, and is rewarded for that.
Monster-Treasure
As mentioned above, the boundary between Monsters and Treasure is the most fluid of the six pairs. The type of Trashing abuse described in Hot Allostatic Load (false accusations of rape) is a method of turning a Treasure into a Monster, and therefore justifying any possible violence as punishment (in the case of HAL, the specific punishment is exile). People who are "Monstered" in this manner are not like the Monsters of symmetric warfare, who are Princes in their own realms: they are Monsters everywhere, accepted nowhere, part of no household. This is just about the only position worse than Treasure, and so the threat of being sent there is the ultimate weapon for Princes and Princesses to discipline Treasure with.
As far as the actual relationship between Monsters and Treasure goes, it could be just about anything depending on the particular people or groups in question. It's not really of any concern to Princes or Princesses (except maybe to make some "look how these savages treat their women" anti-Monster propaganda), and so it's not constrained by this model. In the symmetric warfare example, the prisoners of war one side takes as Treasure from the Monsters they slay would be Princesses in the society where those Monsters are Princes. Or in a more "inter-imperialist" type of war, both the Princes and the Monsters could be fighting over who gets to own the same group of people as Treasure. Or there could be no relation at all - there aren't really any social forces determining what the relationship between a CPC member in Xi'an and a trans woman in Nebraska would be. This is not an exhaustive list, and there's even the possibility that both the Monster and Treasure in question belong to a society which doesn't fit the 4-gender model at all.
Conclusions
Unlike other models of gender, which aim to present something everyone can see themselves in, this is a model that everyone should be trying to get the hell out of. I'm a gender abolitionist - I think that doing something "because I'm a man/woman/Prince/etc." is silly and bad-faith; I think that we should raise all children the same way and that doing so will eliminate gender; I think we should end the practice of sex assignment at birth (or at any time). This model's pessimistic view of genders certainly reflects that, but I hope that you also find it helps explain your experiences a bit better. And of course, abolishing a system requires organizing within its categories (we do not end capitalism by just not identifying as proletarians).
Aiding that organizing was another main goal of this model - specifically, I think it explains the problem where feminism became dominated by rich white women and started catering towards their problems: "women" is not a single coherent gender, and the "women's liberation movement" was in fact a Treasure-Princess alliance. This alliance, like all alliances between distinct groups, fell apart once its parties had finished accomplishing their shared goals, and then the more powerful group turned on the weaker one. Alliances aren't inherently bad, and I think there's still a future for Treasure-Princess alliances, but Treasure organizers must make these alliances consciously, and be aware of the risks.
footnotes
This is not to say that class is homogenous within a household. For example, while a feudal lord's manor is certainly a lordly household, the majority of its inhabitants are going to be low-class servants.
Materialist Antipsychiatry Moment: rather than viewing this lack of self-worth as some internal illness/pathology/lack, we can see that for Treasure it is an accurate assessment of their social reality: they do in fact have no social worth. The Treasure-mental illness relation is cyclical: mental illness further marginalizes the Treasure, and being treated as Treasure makes them more "ill."
Unless they lived in the USSR, which criminalized marital rape within 5 years of its establishment - common communism W. You can play a ""fun"" game by checking on wikipedia to see when marital rape was criminalized where you live - it's probably shockingly recent
Of course Monsters are not actually violent in all cases, especially when they're an internal minority. In fact, symmetrical warfare is basically the only case where the accusations happen to be true. Still, the subject of the fabricated violence matters more than the content.
Special thanks to Jez and Nat for helping me think all of this through!
this post is also on the web at https://pi.alla.loan/gender/4genders.html for easy sharing with non-tumblrinas
8 notes
·
View notes
Note
filmtwt has been a bit of a mess when it comes to anora discussion so I’m so glad to see genuinely fantastic meta and analysis here. I fear tumblr will always be unmatched in that regard. and I’ve loved everything you and your anons have been discussing!
I know the film has its flaws but I swear it’s one of the best this year in terms of how real and tangible the characters feel. they might not have a ton of backstory but the ensemble really excelled in making them all feel lived in. like on my rewatch there is SO much going on in the background - igor putting ketchup on every layer of his burger, toros and garnick arguing about their family whilst igor awkwardly tries to start conversations with ani in the backseat, ivan absolutely hammered unable to stand up in the courtroom whilst toros goes from being called ‘the man in the camel coat’ to ‘camel coat’ to camel man’ by the judge, igor eating popcorn out of the smashed popcorn machine etc. it all feels so alive and I honestly think it just elevates the movie.
also I’m so glad you all share my opinion about the end and igor’s intentions because some of the popular takes I’ve seen are…interesting shall we say? and I truly started to doubt my own ability to analyse and critique media lol
I'm so glad you've been enjoying my posts — sometimes I feel like I'm just rambling/screeching delightedly into the void about this movie and it's good to know someone thinks it's worth reading!
I'm totally with you about all the small details that make the movie seem lived-in. You can tell that it was the work not only of the writer/director — who seems to understand the lives of working class people better than your average Hollywood type — and the actors themselves, who added all those personal elements that weren't in the script. (I also heard there was a fair amount of improvisation during filming, so that would have been a place much of that might have been added.) Filming directly on location in all these real places (the strip club, Tatiana's, the diner) with a lot of actual locals also gives it a sense of honesty and groundedness that's not easy to achieve. You've pinpointed so many of my favorite little details (Igor eating the popcorn, Toros and Garnik's familial bickering — and "camel man," lol!). I also love Ani's butterfly motif (on her nail decorations and her t-shirt) and the practice pole she's got set up in her bedroom (visible for a few seconds as her sister is talking to her).
I'm kinda glad I didn't see any of those takes on Igor's intentions, which I can probably guess at. I mean, whatever, people can interpret media however they want (and I think the director and the actors have been pretty tight-lipped on explaining the last scene because they want the audience to have to freedom to read it multiple ways), but I don't really get the sense that they wanted people to walk away with the idea that Igor thinks he's buying Ani with the ring or he's deliberately violating her boundaries by trying to kiss her. We're all entitled to our own takes, though, even if we don't necessarily agree on everything.
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
It’s the Year of the Dragon, so let’s talk about a dragon movie!
In Damsel, Millie Bobby Brown stars as Elodie, a young noblewoman from a land suffering severe famine. Her family receives aid in a bride price for her marriage to Prince Henry of the fabulously wealthy island Kingdom of Aurea. It seems a dream-come-true until, right after the wedding ceremony, Elodie is ritually sacrificed to the dragon that lives on the island in the mountain cave near the castle.
It turns out that every generation, Aurea sacrifices three maidens to the dragon, and she’ll leave the kingdom alone. Now Elodie has to find a way to escape the maze-like caverns, using her wits and whatever she can find, while being hunted by a sadistic dragon that delights in taunting her prey.
I should start with: subjectively, I kind of love this movie. Shoreh Aghdashloo tends to always be great in her roles, and she makes a fantastic dragon here. I would watch a dozen movies of her playing an evil dragon, because having her voice a character who relishes in wrecking stuff and people? This is great. I love the dragon’s design, too. Thank Tiamat, we finally get a movie dragon that’s not a wyvern. We spend so much of the movie only seeing bits and pieces of her, until we get to the third act and we finally see the full dragon and it is glorious. Playing with her prey like a great cat who spits flaming liquid. Excellent. Fantastic. Beautiful.
I really like dragons, okay?
Objectively, though, there are some problems with the way this movie was written.
The biggest is that the movie tries to make the dragon ultimately sympathetic to the viewer. And you’re probably going to guess how long before the Reveal, as there’s pretty much only one way writers try to make murderous dragons sympathetic. Which is, uh… look, I don’t know that it works. The gist of it is (minor spoilers, I guess) that the dragon thinks she’s killing maidens of the Aurean royal line. The attempt to make her sympathetic leans not on her realizing she’s been cruel and callous to innocent women who didn’t deserve it, but instead realizing she hasn’t been cruel and callous to the innocent women who still didn’t deserve it, but were descended from someone who did. Ultimately, the movie seems to be okay if the dragon was horribly killing women if they had the wrong bloodline, I guess?
I don’t think it’s what was intended, because the Aurean family is just… garbage, man, with Prince Henry as the only one with a shred of decency, and that is a small shred. It feels clumsy, is all.
Maybe it’d be overlooked if the Aureans got more development, but they don’t. I’m not saying I need them to have sympathetic motivations; Lord knows they don’t need those at all. They can be terrible people, of course, and I think that’s all that the makers of the film wanted them to be. I would have liked to have seen more of them, though. Even if I don’t need them to be relatable, I’d like a better grasp on why they think this is an okay thing to do.
Elodie’s stepmother–she also needed some work. Angela Bassett performs fantastically here with what she’s got, and so we get some good groundwork, I just think there could have been more done with this character.
The movie clearly wants us to think it’s a happy ending, and I don’t know that it is. I think there’s a throwaway line about how Elodie secured supplies to take home to help with the famine, but I notice discussions I’ve seen of the movie don’t mention it, so maybe I’m mistaken. Other factors make me really question how happy that ending’s meant to be, though.
Also, those glow worms were really convenient. Not a huge problem, as they’re established early on, I just think maybe the way they work is a little too easy.
Even with its issues, however, I think the movie’s first half is legitimately fantastic. It’s thrilling, it’s cool, it’s got a killer dragon, and it’s got someone trying to survive in a cave. Performances all-around are great and fun to watch.
So maybe it doesn’t hold together as well as it could–still, it’s not a bad dragon movie, and if you want to see awesome dragon action, the movie works for that.
[Also apparently there’s a novelization which takes the story in a completely different direction? I’ll be checking that out of my local library soon.]
5 notes
·
View notes
Note
Do you believe in true love,soulmates,good ppl and happy ending?if so how would you like to persuade those who don't believe this world to be a good place to live or even view it as a paradox of unexpected tragedies?
I'm just gonna start by saying this is probably not the answer you were expecting or want to hear, but its the best answer I have. I'm not the most philosophical person out there, nor am I the best at persuading people to do anything. I just live my life, doing the best I can with the cards I'm dealt.
Putting this under a read more because HOO BOY, its a long one.
In truth, I don't think real life is similar to a movie in that there are happy endings. Even if you do get a happy, fairytale ending (I'm not even sure what that would look like to you), you do still have to wake up the next morning, and the next. So on and so forth. And some of those days are gonna be great, some of them are gonna suck. But most are gonna be ordinary, boring days.
I have my doubts on both true love and soulmates. Maybe because I live in a culture where both of those are attributed to romantic partners that would supposedly "complete" you. You are already a whole person, there isn't a destined other half out there that you need to dedicate your life to finding. If you find someone that you love and want to spend your life with, great! But it shouldn't feel like a requirement for your life to have meaning, y'know?
I do believe that people are generally inclined to try to do good for themselves and others. There's a reason why characters that love being evil for evil's sake are seen as kinda cartoonish. Even if someone is the worst, most heinous person on the planet, they are likely able to either justify their actions or completely ignore the suffering they cause.
As for persuading people who don't believe that the world is good, at times I can sympathize. The world does suck for so many people that when you hear about it its hard to believe that there's good in anything. But to me, believing that the world is nothing but misery is when you get complacent with it. Everything is always gonna suck anyway, so why bother trying? If you believe that there is potential for good, however, that's when you start to fight for it. That's when you know that while its bad now, it can be better.
But also, taking breaks is necessary. I'm sorry to tell you, you are not a machine, and even if you were, machines also need downtime. No one person can save the world, nor does it only take a day to do so. Exhaustion, lack of sleep/food, and an overworked mind make for excellent breeding ground for nihilism and hopelessness. If you're doing so much and all your activism feels like its for nothing, perhaps take a break and focus on something unrelated. A movie, a book, a recipe, a fish tank, it doesn't matter. Just not doom-scrolling, or anything that you know will make you feel worse. Then come back later when you feel refreshed. I would recommend leaving it until the next day, but you may feel different depending on your specific scenario.
I hope that answered your question?? Again I am not the best at these types of queries, or even explaining what I believe in its entirety, so don't take what I say here as gospel. If you asked me this again in a week, my answer might be a bit different. Unfortunately, I am human and am therefor prone to changing my mind based on my observations of the world. This is just what I have right now.
#how controversial do I think this statement is going to be on Tumblr#lets find out#not art#ask#my first as acutally hoo boy#discussion#food for thought#perhaps#philosophy#maybe#I'm not actually sure how to tag this#not a philosopher by any means#this is just what I observed
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy (Episodes One - Three)
Rewatched 3•9•24 , 3•10•24 , 3•16•24
The Star Wars franchise is a franchise made famous by its influence in pop culture. Nothing knows that more than the prequel trilogy, which had sparked the divorce of the community. You either hate or love these movies, there is no in-between. I myself fall on both sides… like a child in spilt custody.
The Phantom Menace - Letterboxd
The Phantom Menace was the first of the prequels, an excellent title to a mediocre film. The title announcing itself, putting an emphasis on the new story of politics. Some may say it’s boring with its constant talk of politics & the beginnings of the Star War. I however quite enjoy it, I in fact love it. Seeing everything play out, leading to the beginnings of the original trilogy. However… this is also where it falls short. Characters introduced of which we already know the outcome of. Obi-Wan becomes an old man & lives to die by Darth Vader. Anakin ends up being Darth Vader. So on & so on. We all know where these characters are leading to. Which brings the issue of stakes. There are none. We know in the end that war will break out, we know who these characters become & if they live. Personally, I think they should’ve introduced new characters. Leaving our known characters as supporting cast. For instance, Qui-Gon Jinn has no future version we know of. We don’t know his fate. We don’t know what happens to him, only knowing by the end of the film. This leads us into Attack of the Clones, only doing slightly better.
Attack of the Clones - Letterboxd
The stakes eventually come as we see the Clone Wars begin. We know what happens ultimately but, it’s the story of the Clone Wars that end up being the most interesting part. We watch as our characters become their well known versions, Anakin especially becoming his pure anger filled Darth Vader. Especially with his little genocide on the Sand People.
Another issue sparks from all of this though, the… the writing. The actors are clearly trying their best with the script. But the script itself is god awful, everything coming with such a “what.” This is most prevalent with the line “I hate sand” from Anakin, holy shit… this has to be one of the worst lines I’ve ever heard. It’s not the actors fault, it’s Lucas’s. It tells us too much, the line directly tells us about Anakin’s hate of sand. A much better way would be for Lucas to show us his hate of sand. Show us how much Anakin hates it, instead of directly telling us in a line that has since become infamous.
Revenge of the Sith - Letterboxd
Revenge of the Sith is a most amazing conclusion to the story of Anakin, before his original trilogy variant. The dialogue may be so so at times & even the cgi is far from best but, it’s most importantly the loss of a brother. Someone you loved being loss to the dark side. That is why Revenge of the Sith is great, because of the raw emotions. Even the fight scenes between Obi-Wan & Anakin is some of the most beautiful choreography you’ll ever seen in an action film.
Conclusion -
This doesn’t mean I hate the prequels, in-fact I love the prequels. I love them heavily, just… the glaring flaws are so obvious I’d have to be blind to not see them. Hell, I even own the entire trilogy on disc!
#star wars#star wars prequels#sw prequels#anakin skywalker#obi wan kenobi#prequel trilogy#filmblr#film blog#filmgifs#film critic#film critique#media critique#art critique#movie review#film review#movies#letterboxd#dark side#revenge of the sith#phantom menace#attack of the clones
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Mediaposting 2023, #35: Banana Fish (anime)
[said while vibrating very quickly and typing out like 20 different bullet points] i like this series a normal amount
okay so. non-spoiler thoughts:
step 1 YOU SHOULD READ/WATCH THIS. it does have content warnings for literally everything you can possibly think of as needing a common content warning (drug abuse, sexual assault, racism, and thats absolutely just the tip of the iceberg) but my fucking god. no wonder it's been such an influential piece of media on literally every jp anime/manga crime story (especially the BL ones) written since
for a series that is literally one of the early genesis points of BL as a genre i was ABSOLUTELY expecting more actual BL than was in this LOL. not that i'm really upset, bc honestly i really like the way that ash and eiji's relationship is written in a shoujo-y "they obviously care about each other a lot but it's not going to be outright romance" kind of way. bc like, honestly? that makes it way more emotionally satisfying (and devastating). i think it would actually make less sense if anything more happened In the story (though more happening in the epilogue wouldnt hurt LOL)
how the FUCK was this published in a shoujo magazine
the time period change to modern day from the mid-80's has both helped and hindered this series bc like. on one hand. much easier to do everything with a phone. also the update to shorter's character design was excellent,10/10 no notes. on the other hand. the Everything About It makes it so obvious that it was written to be a product of its time.
speaking of ^ ash turning from A Guy Who Knows How To Use A Computer into a hacking genius is so. why. i mean you can update it for sure but Why Like This
god i wish this had more room to breathe sometimes bc the exposition goes WILDLY fast sometimes. why did they try and do 19 volumes in 24 episodes. the 39 episodes that the director wanted would have been so nice to have
that said: the emotional moments that i actually give a shit about and that make up the core of the weight of the story are given what they deserve. at least up to volume 5 they are. gestures at ep 9? and 22 with a pained smile
i literally could write an essay about why it works so well as a spin on the american-style gangster story even while it definitely has flaws. and how its influenced so many fucking things. my god.
it has flaws for SURE but the rest is so good that i don't care. which is rare for me (gestures at nirvanai/neo twewy being other examples)
spoiler thoughts under the cut (like full-very-ending-of-series spoilers) but YEAH UH I LIKE THIS THING CAN YOU TELL BY HOW MUCH I WROTE ABOUT IT.
it does kind of annoy me that literally all of the canon-MLM (probably gay but you know) guys are horrible people lol. like wow love how the gay predator stereotype is on full display here. feeeeels baaaaad. i know i know asheiji homoeroticism i am ON THAT TRAIN
however yut-lung being feminine out of a wish to carry on his dead mom's legacy is kind of a slay. ive seen people go "ugh it sucks that one of the villains is a feminine man' but while he is definitely not a good person hes one of the less terrible villains, just like. as a person. hes also a teenager in shitty circumstances just with way more power and sway
here's the part where I admit that I was spoiled on the ending so it didn't hit as hard for me OOPS. however. the anime DOES leave it open-ended and it fucking irritates me that anime-only people are like "boo i hate the ending bc ash dies!!!" when it is LITERALLY AMBIGUOUS. i have heard that the manga is less ambiguous about it but :') oh well. anime-onlys what are you doing
speaking of ^ i actually like the ending. like i think a lot of people who absolutely hate it must not have a lot of familiarity with gangster movies as a genre bc it is a genre convention that the Main Gangster dies in the end. granted this was a hayes code thing which the manga definitely did not have to do LOL but its definitely supposed to feel unfair bc ash's damn LIFE is unfair.
however i'm glad the anime makes the ending ambiguous bc that feels like a more fitting end. like ash's life was always in limbo, considering what he was doing, so making his life in limbo at the end too? Good. Yes. Do That
the fucking. everything with shorter and the sa-yo-na-ra bit. i die. that shit is so emotionally painful
i know this sounds weird but i kind of wish they dragged out the "what the hell does banana fish mean" thing a LIIIITTLE longer but by that i mean like, halfway point of the series. like they could have used a little more time to figure out what it is. also that would have let shorter live a little longer ay lmao that said this criticism also almost definitely applies to the manga soooo. you know
#and yes i'm gonna finish the manga at some point. i just bought all of it like a lunatic after reading the first few volumes so. lol#junpei.txt#mediaposting#finished this last night but just doing a thorough write-up on it now
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
What Makes Something Scary?
this is a shit post but I just wanted to get my thoughts out about it.
I have always been fascinated with what makes something scary in film. I have seen my fair share of horror media and I have come to the conclusion that the answer is very simple. however, so many writers and directors seem to still be getting it wrong.
jumpscares or startling someone is not what makes a film scary.
look at Skinamarink, for example. a film that has stirred lots of controversy because of its nature. I have heard people say that it's not even a film.
Skinamarink has to be one of the most chilling movies I have ever seen. and don't think of me as someone who is only scared of analog horror or first-person horror games, because I am not. I am an avid enjoyer of Hereditary and other mainstream horror films.
but they all have something in common.
suspence. I know you've heard this before, that suspense is the most powerful weapon when curating a jumpscare, which is likely true. but what if there were no jumpscares at all? this is what Skinamarink explores.
and I urge you all to watch Matpat's video on Skinamarink if you haven't already because his analysis of the film really puts it into a different, even scarier light.
the suspense and darkness of Skinamarink, along with excellent audio design, create a horrifying movie that just makes you want to cover your eyes. Even if you have read the reviews and you know nothing is going to jump out at you, the movie still manages to make you feel terror.
on a different branch, hereditary is one of my favorite movies ever. not just horror movies, but movies in general. hereditary gets its scares from the same place as Skinamarink, but this film has the extra level of fantastic acting.
the performances in Hereditary are second to none and really make the audience feel the terror. especially after Charlie's death following the party. if you have not seen Hereditary, please go watch it. it will change your life.
alex wolff, who plays Peter in the film, delivers a fantastic performance of true fear following his sister's death. his performance goes hand-in-hand with Ari Aster's incredible direction. this scene in the car and following the accident is a stroke of genius on Aster's part.
the things that I tend to find in all scary movies or media are the suspense, and performances of the actors. of course, content and scripting play a part in this. but assume that you had the best concept for a horror movie you have ever seen and gave it to a director and a group of actors who just butchered it. if those two elements are not in check,
it becomes a parody. something making fun of brilliant movies like Skinamarink and Hereditary.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Giraffe's Eye View: Christmas Specials Special | Klaus
Chestnuts are roasting on an open fire. Jack Frost is nipping at your nose. Mom and dad can hardly wait for school to start again. All the dogs in the neighborhood somehow learned to bark Jingle Bells in sync. Yet retail workers are still more annoyed with Mariah Carey. Snow is getting shoveled, tossed, and formed into sentient beings leading parades without permits. It makes for an excellent distraction as the Krampus abducts children for bad behavior. Fruitcake is exchanged only to find its permanent home in the garbage. Terrorists have hijacked the Holiday office party right before your boss can give you a Jelly of the Month Club membership as your bonus. And of course, the Turducken has returned to wreak its fiery vengeance upon an unsuspecting world! If all this doesn’t put you in the Christmas spirit, perhaps these following Holiday specials will!
Greetings people of today and robots of tomorrow! It is I, Santa Clark, your geeky giraffe friend with a deep love of Christmas! My obsession for the yuletide is rivaled only by Maleficent’s hatred for it, which is saying a lot considering she once teamed up with Mad Madam Mim to kidnap the literal Spirit of Christmas. Yes, that really happened. I know this due to my annual pilgrimage to the Island of Misfit Specials, home to obscure or nerdy festive media ranging from movies, TV episodes, and comics. It’s no easy journey. Constantly I find myself confronted by sinister snowmen, genocidal gingerbread men, and worst of all, crappy commercials. Getting stabbed in the foot by a candy-cane wielding cookie is one thing, but I swear I’ve seen that ad for Wilbur’s White Elephant Gift Emporium more times than I’ve seen Miracle on 34th Street! Sometimes at night I catch myself reciting that jingle. Wilbur’s White Elephant Gift Emporium: Where Christmas meets Convenience! Huh, maybe Maleficent had a point.
Nah, my deep-rooted appreciation for this time of year can weather even the most moronic marketing! It helps that most of the merry media I’ve seen have put me in the perfect Holiday mood! Examples include the time a Ninja Turtle found himself trapped in a truck full of stollen toys, a drunk department store Santa stumbling onto a wish-granting magic bag, Big Bird nearly becoming a popsicle, Gwenpool waking up in a world where Galactus took the place of jolly ol’ Saint Nicholas, a terrifying tree stump trying to slaughter some saps over a stupid ship war, and the year when Death gave the Little Match Girl the greatest gift of all. Needless to say, I thought I had seen it all. That is, until I took my friends on a trip to the Island, tasking them to find me new, strange, seasonal specials to review! Some of them were fair, finding me festive favorites as comforting as coco in front of the fireplace. Others were fiendish, wanting to feed off my misery like Gremlins after midnight. Regardless of how naughty or nice my companions were, I’ve compiled all of their suggestions into a makeshift advent calendar! So stay tuned everyday until Christmas to see how badly my buddies can shred what little sanity I have left.
On the seventh day of Christmas, my buddies gave to me...
Netflix has never made my Nice List. Even back in their Blockbuster killing days I thought they were overrated. After all, what’s so cool about an overpriced service that didn’t have Jurassic Park? Now that they’ve spawned steep competition, heightened their prices, and constantly cancel any popular series they produce, it seems the rest of the world is finally singing the same song. Welcome to the Netflix Sucks Club, everyone! However, in defense of the house Stranger Things built, they are running circles around Disney in regards to cartoons. Along with streaming sensational shows like She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous, and The Dragon Prince, they’re also home to some equally amazing animated movies. Movies such as Nimona, The Mitchells vs the Machines, and of course Klaus. Their origin story for Santa came out at just the right time and has quickly become a seasonal staple for many peeps around the world. Including in Barcelona, home to the artistic android AN-D (Void-Android). So how did this flick become so instantly beloved?
For starters, it’s unspeakably gorgeous! Good lord, I’d be insane not to praise the phenomenal talent poured into every frame. The expressive characters, their energetic motion, all of the breath-taking backdrops enhanced by enriched lighting, this is easily one of the prettiest pictures of the past few years. Words fail in describing how amazing the art is. It’s right up there alongside Spider-Verse or Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. Makes sense considering all three utilize a style combining the hand-drawn animation of yesterday with the technological trickery of today. Everything is so beautifully blended that I genuinely have a hard time telling where one method ends and the other begins. Which was the point. Director / Character Animator Segio Pablos theorized the reason 2D animation had yet to make a comeback was due to how it had failed to evolve. Features like Treasure Planet or The Princess and the Frog paired their riveting plots with visuals trying too hard to recapture the magic of the old days. So when Pablos formed his own studio, the cleverly named Sergio Pablos Animation, he was determined to make something special. In his own words, “It was important to me that the film did not feel like it could come out of any other studio, and that it had its own personality without losing the broad appeal that’s expected from a high-end holiday film.”
That’s a quote from Ramin Zahed’s Klaus: The Art of the Movie, a book I highly recommend reading. Not only are you treated to page upon page of fantastic behind-the-scenes concepts, but you also get to hear how Batman Begins served as inspiration. Honestly it matches up once you dive into the plot.
People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy. Or laziness, in the case of Jesper Johanson (Jason Schwartzman). He’s a millennial mailman so spoiled he nearly rivals the Kardashians. Key difference being Jesper’s genuinely entertaining. Furthermore, this brat has a father who actually cares about him, threatening to cut off his trust fund unless he delivers six thousand letters by year’s end. Should be easy given this takes place long before email was invented, right?
Wrong! Like any good parent, the Postmaster General knows his son will be forever doomed to fail if he doesn’t exercise some tough love. It doesn’t get much tougher than sending him to the small, northern island of Smeerensburg. Here the bitter chill of winter is rivaled only by the searing hatred between the town’s two prominent families; the Ellingboes and the Krums. Neither clan remembers how their feud started. Really, when did details like that matter? It’s tradition! What’s important is the disdain that divides them! A mindset later adapted for Twitter! It’s an ideology that’s sadly enforced onto their offspring, too. Snow will fall in Southtown, USA before they allow the spawn of their sworn enemies to mingle! Shun out those who are different from you, even if the only separating factor is their hair color! Wow, it’s so realistic it’s painful. They’re not even allowed to attend school together, much to the frustration of the local teacher Alva (Rashida Jones). Arriving eight years ago hoping to guide youths towards a bright, better tomorrow, now she’s selling fish so she can escape this dump. Getting away from this petty rivalry is all that matters. Both sides are firmly set in their ways, not letters needed to express any ire. Looks like our desperate protagonist needs a miracle!
Enter our titular Klaus, a bearded behemoth voiced by the legendary J.K. Simmons. Contrasting other cinematic Kringles, our initial impression of this legendary figure is that of a gruff, grumpy loner longing to be left alone. He’s a man living far out in the woods building birdhouses in memoriam of his long lost wife. Yup, Mrs. Claus is dead! Merry Christmas! Before the two had hoped to fill their house with happy children, the gentle giant filling his barn to the brim with hand-crafted toys in anticipation. With those dreams dashed, he has no purpose other than waiting to die. That is until Jesper accidentally drops off a depressed drawing swindled from a sad boy. Seeing someone in need, the weary woodsman wrangles the wormy weakling into helping him deliver one of his many toys; a wind-up frog. It’s while watching the kid playing in the window that we get our first glimpse of the good man inside. For the first half of the runtime, Simmons scarcely says a word. You’d be forgiven for forgetting he was in this at all! Yet like any great animated feature worth its salt, the visuals express everything. A spark can be seen in Santa’s eyes when he witnesses the happiness brought onto another. In that moment he’s given a reason to live again.
Lucky for Jesper, said reason is his ticket out of here. Turns out the kid had caught Santa staring through the window. Presuming his letter’s what led to a shiny new toy, word is quickly spread amongst his peers, all quickly forming a line around the post office. Seizing the opportunity, the courier convinces Klaus to donate more of his toys for tots, under the condition they do so in secret under nightfall. As more gifts are given out, legends of the mysterious merry man grow. Most of it predicated on lies and deception. It’s an aspect of the story that really bugs me, sad to say. Personally I prefer how Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town handled this detail, organically explaining how a humble toymaker became the mythical figure we know and love today. Sure, most of it is based in magic, but we’re talking about a guy who traverses the world all in one night on a sled led by reindeer. As I hope my earlier rant in the Flash made clear, logic need not apply here. Layering Batman in a grounded reality makes a strange sort of sense, not so much Papa Noel. For example, the reason Klaus swaps out his horse for reindeer in the first place is because Jesper doesn’t want to lighten the load of presents. More presents equals more letters! Worst of these fabrications is the Naughty List. One little snot found a clump of coal in his stocking, threatening to make like the Power Rangers and mutilate the mailman lest he get answers. Putting aside that it was in fact Jesper who pulled the dirty deed, he terrifies the tubby tike by stating Santa knows when he’s been sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. Only the ornery ones end up on the Naughty List.
Upon learning of the list, an unexpected domino effect triggers throughout the community. First the kids start behaving better, performing good deeds such as shoveling snow, painting over graffiti, cleaning clarinets, helping out with the laundry, picking berries, nursing a stubborn senior who broke his foot, even going to school at Jesper’s suggestion. An astonished Alva learns to love teaching again, going so far as to spend her savings to spruce up the schoolhouse. Now some may argue this is only happening because these brats want a reward. Fair enough, it’s not an unfair assumption to make. Provided you ignore the adults mirroring that attitude. Despite nobody giving them anything, they’re still acting neighborly towards each other. Why? Because kindness is infectious! It’s a mindset the cynics of the world will undoubtedly scoff at. Let’m keep their dour worldview. Humans are far more hospitable than given credit for. Klaus himself puts it best: a true selfless act always sparks another. Jesper himself scoffs at first, until he meets a sweet little Sami girl named Márgu (Neda Margrethe Labba). Look up ‘cute’ in the dictionary and there’ll be a picture of her. Those protesting otherwise may also expect clumps of coal in their socks! Good gosh, she deserves all the hugs! Although she’ll settle for a sled. Throughout the picture we see her ask Jesper for help in writing a letter to Klaus so she can receive one. Eventually he concedes, asking Alva to translate before helping Klaus build the sled himself. It’s when he delivers it and sees Márgu eagerly ride it that we see that same spark twinkle in the mailman’s eyes too. Perhaps his colossal colleague was onto something after all.
Do the clan elders care? Nope. Realizing their resentful lifestyle is fleeting, both agree to a ceasefire to cancel Christmas. Now that’s the true reason for the season: uniting under a common hatred! Joy to the world!
By then, Jesper’s forgotten about his selfish status quo, contempt with settling down in Smeerensburg. He’s ready to help his friend deliver more presents to the pipsqueaks, now aided additionally by Alva and Márgu’s Sami tribe. Imagine his surprise when dear daddy arrives to escort him back home. All six-thousand letters have been delivered, partially thanks to the malicious machinations of the elders. One would assume they’d burn the barn down due to its location being public knowledge, but then we wouldn’t be subjected to the liar revealed trope. Now in fairness to this classic cliche, How to Train Your Dragon demonstrated that it can work well to strengthen the story. Stoic is a stubborn man set in his ways, it makes sense that he’d ignore anything Hiccup has to say. Jesper's pals suddenly acting pissy doesn't. What, because everything he said was a lie? Okay, but he still changed all your lives for the better, so what does it matter? In her review, Cellspex proposes that Jesper’s friends should’ve allowed him to leave, a true selfless act that in turn would’ve prompted him to stay. That would’ve tied back to the thesis of the narrative while also feeling less forced. Otherwise it’s so obnoxious going through the motions. Inevitably Jasper returns to save the day, they partake in a chase scene minus Klaus flying on rooftops in a big, black tank, and all is forgiven. In the end the elders are forced to reconcile as two of their own fall in love, Jesper lives a happy life with Alva and their kids, and Klaus eventually dies. Merry Christmas! Or does he? As a man Santa is flesh and blood. He can be ignored, he can be destroyed, but as a symbol? He can be incorruptible! Everlasting, even. Jesper can’t comprehend what happened to him after that. He stopped trying to make sense of it a long time ago. What he does know is that once a year he gets to see his friends again. So long as love, generosity, and devotion still exist, so too does Klaus.
Overall, Klaus is a flawed masterpiece that’s earned its seasonal staple status. Artistically it shines like a diamond! Storywise is where the smudges are shown. Pablos accomplished his agenda in elevating the animated artform, but failed to do so narratively. Ironically it's the opposite problem he proclaimed most cartoon pictures once had. This feels like what happens when The Emperor’s New Groove, Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town, Cars, and Batman Begins are all mixed in a blender. It’s a familiar flavor, though not a terrible one. If nothing else, it's a fun, festive film with vibrant visuals, a charismatic cast, and at least one sensational song. I sincerely hope more movies are made like this in the future, even if they end up on Netflix. The future of animation looks bright! Wait, that’s not the future. Some random Christmas carnival is on fire! Quick, throw cards at it!
< PREVIOUS REVIEW | INDEX | NEXT REVIEW >
#clarktooncrossing#Christmas#Christmas 2023#Klaus#Klaus movie#Klaus netflix#Netflix#streaming#review#streaming review#movie review#geeky giraffe#Christmas Specials Special#Giraffe's Eye View#J. K. Simmons#Jesper#Santa Claus#jason schwartzman#Rashida Jones#Margu#Sami
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
I wasn't gonna say anything but I've seen this post too many times now.
Although the aesthetics of having a bunch of tiny ssd cartridges with movies and shows is excellent and very appealing, I cannot stand for this slander of the optical media!
Yes, optical disks are slower (for data transfer) and a lot more expensive BUT they last so much longer.
Optical media is the longest lasting medium currently in production. It can reliably hold onto your data for 50-100 years without power or cooling, and without the worry of magnetic degradation. Using recordable optical media such as DVD-R is perfectly suitable for long-term archiving because it is write-once, read-many, meaning it is physically immutable—cannot be changed—so the data on it is tamper-proof. (source)
I also saw some folks in the notes talking about Micro SD (it really would look super cool to have mini boxes of micro sd, like dvd boxes but tiny, I love the concept), but I gotta say: BAD IDEA!!! Micro SDs are not made for long-term storage!!! You will loose your media!!!
Its basic architecture is part of the problem with storing data on an SD. The gate can hold the electrons for some time. However, this group contains the pieces of data that make up the whole files you want to store. Some electrons leak out of the gate and get lost as time passes. If they do, you may have to deal with missing or corrupted data that could be difficult to get off the card later. [...] In short, it may be fair to say that SD cards can store some data for a few years. However, many factors could shorten that period. For example, a brand new card will keep data longer than an older one. Flash memory also has no error correction. Therefore, the chances of getting your data corrupted or unreadable are high. An SD card is practical if you need to store non-critical data for only a few years. However, this kind of memory isn’t your best choice for crucial data you want to keep safe for a long time. (source)
I don't know about you but I'd like to keep my favorite movies, shows, albums, etc, for like decades! I want my children to have them! And my grandchildren!
And I also saw some people in the notes talking about cassette tapes. They are very easily erased, guys. They are written magnetically and can be corrupted super easily. I still have a bunch but I have to be very careful with how I store them, and even so I've had the surprise of popping a few in the VHS only to see that their content is gone :(
Lastly, the SSD:
- SSDs are temperature sensitive. If you put it on a shelf of a storage room with high temperature, the memory charge that defines bits in flash will fade quickly over time. When the charge is gone, so is the data. - SSD’s speed and reliability are much relying on the firmware’s house cleaning work. Yet, when unpowered, the firmware is unavailable. - Since the SSDs make use of chips to store data while the chips can only be written for a certain number of times before they fail, there is great chance of SSD failure under too much writing work - SSDs store data on flash memory, which needs to be charged with electricity to keep the data stable. [...] In summary of the above concerns, the most important factors that affect the lifespan of an SSD are the temperature, the read/write frequency and the power charge. (source)
So yeah, SSDs are good! They work much better than normal HDs. But optical disks are still better. They are the best!!!
PLEASE DON'T LET DVDS DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want owned physical media back, but I'm not sad to see DVDs go – optical media was always a transitional technology, and suffers from a number of intractable drawbacks. I want them to start selling movies on indestructible solid-state cartridges the size of a quarter, so I can keep my entire media collection in an unsorted pile in a random cabinet drawer and have to go rummaging through it like an amateur chef trying to find the lemon zester every single time I want to watch something. Do you understand? I want to lose the entire Star Wars trilogy between my couch cushions.
26K notes
·
View notes
Text


Main navigation
Home
Top Stories
Latest Stories
Life and Trust
A Wall St Adventure.

By Robert M Massimi. ( Broadway Bob).Published about 12 hours ago • 3 min read

Robert M. Massimi.
If you like immersive theater then "Life and Trust" is for you! Set in 69 Bever St. in the financial district, this play has tremendous props, sound and acting!
The stock market is about to crash and a banking executive has a decision to make the night before the crash. What happens next is his journey through life; what he wanted, what he missed out on; and what he created for the masses.
The show runs three hours and comfortable shoes are a must! Throughout the six floors you are invited to be a voyeur in the lives of the people who surround J.G. Conwell. He is a stern man with a hard exterior; knowledgeable about business and the markets, he is seeing the end as it nears. He wonders allowed if it was all worth it. Conwell is forthcoming about the world; he is cold and calculating in how he approaches business and the masses of people as if he is playing a chess match.
The costumes in this show are first rate and capture the period perfectly. The audience must wear a mask at all times which gives off a gothic vibe to the show (we are faceless, much like the way Conwell sees the public). As you walk from room to room the various temperatures, flooring has an individual feel, touch, sound, sight which rushes all your senses. It gives us the many moods to the play.
Where the public sees Wall St. as a white-shoe atmosphere, the playwright brings us to the depths of what Wall St. can be, what it can do to the public and its people. The actors are degraded to a Bohemian lifestyle through dependency on what Conwell has invented for his dying sister. The sudden poverty of man has jilted the world and people need a psychological out.
As people dance to forget, the degradation only gets worse. At times "Life and Trust" reminds me of "Mulholland Drive, the movie... it has many subplots to the show and careful attention must be paid to the actors who never really speak.
An hour or so into the show it can feel repetitive and slow, however, the play pics up at the 1:45 minute mark and the story starts to come together. In immersive theater you run the risk of getting run over by either the actors or the audience. Like Conwell, there are no rules to the immersive.
Resonating most is the grace of the actors, the all dance so well; their "business" throughout lets the audience know where they are without saying a word. The choreography needs to be superb for the show to work and it is! The show is sometimes ballet, sometimes bare knuckle, but always top notch!
If you saw "Sleep No More", you will love "Life and Trust". This theater company has its new digs at 69 Bever St. as the McKittrick Hotel is not letting any more shows be played there. I liked both venues, but I think the new digs are better; big flowing columns, high ceilings and wide spaces make the viewing easier to watch the actors.
From the actors to the support staff the experience was a memorable one! The last scene in this show is one that I will never forget. For me it will go down as one of the greatest theatrical experiences of my life! What the director did in the last 15 minutes or so was deeply creative, so well throughout that I am not sure I have or will see anything like this in theater again!
"Life and Trust", Off Broadway, Immersive, Lion King, Alladin, Broadway Bob, No Bull With Raging Robert, Studio Seven, Show Prep, My Life Publications.
Critique
About the Creator

Robert M Massimi. ( Broadway Bob).
I have been writing on theater since 1982. A graduate from Manhattan College B.S. A member of Alpha Sigma Lambda, which recognizes excellence in both English and Science. I have produced 14 shows on and off Broadway. I've seen over700 shows
Reader insights
Insights submitted by your readers will appear here.
How does it work?
Comments
Allow comments on this story
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Share your thoughts…(Optional)
Comment
Keep reading
More stories from Robert M Massimi. ( Broadway Bob). and writers in Art and other communities.

Swept Away
"Swept Away" at the Longacre Theatre is a musical that can be put into "the boat" category. Like "The Life of Pi" and "The Shark is Broken", the staging is creative and interesting to look at. Written by John Logan and music by The Avett Brothers, the folksy musical is a much different kind of show than we are used to seeing on The Great White Way.
RMM(BB
ByRobert M Massimi. ( Broadway Bob).30 days ago in Art

Explore Lucrative Opportunities: Businesses, Manufacturing Units, and Hotels for Sale in Mumbai
Mumbai, often referred to as the financial capital of India, is a city where dreams turn into reality. Its vibrant economy and vast opportunities make it a prime location for investments. Whether you are looking to invest in a business, establish a manufacturing unit, or own a luxurious hotel or resort, Mumbai offers a plethora of opportunities. Let’s delve into some key investment prospects in this bustling metropolis.
BD
ByBusiness Deals5 days ago in Art

How to Choose Living Room Home Decorative Lighting Online
Lighting is an essential element of home decor, especially in the living room, where comfort and style come together. Choosing the right decorative lighting online can be overwhelming with so many options available, but with a few simple tips, you can find the perfect lights to elevate your space. Here’s a comprehensive guide to help you make the right choice when shopping for living room decorative lighting online.
RG
ByRadiant Glowlighting3 days ago in Art

My 2024 Playlist
The year is wrapped in a cloudy layer of memory fog. Where the beginning of the year seems like a distant reality. If anything I see the future a lot more clearly. That being said, I find that I struggle to remember a lot of things because I am shifting; I am transforming. A few months ago, I had the realization that I was not who I wanted to be and I was falling into repetitive cycles of trauma and depression. Ultimately, I was sick of it. I had to make it feel better. And If I was going to grow then I needed to look at what I had been doing, accept that the past served me, but no longer does and move on to what I wanted to become. And even with the year coming to a close, I am not done this change. In fact it is only the beginning. However, I understand that the past plays a significant role in who we become, and since I believe this to be true, than perhaps we can live through it again in the songs I listened too over and over again.
LB
ByLane Burns5 days ago in Beat
Written by Robert M Massimi. ( Broadway Bob).
Find us on social media
Miscellaneous links
Explore
Contact
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Support
© 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
0 notes
Text
I reviewed It Follows, which I watched for the first time tonight, on Letterboxd. Reposting here so as not to force people to go to a different website to see a thing. Be aware that this review contains spoilers (thus it is under the cut).
I went into this film with entirely skewed expectations. For years, I had seen discourse online about how this film made deep points and was allegory for things like traumas of sexual assault and STIs (or STD—sexually transmitted demon—as some reviewers have joked). I honestly wish I had come into this viewing experience with different expectations because I would have enjoyed this film better as an atmospheric and entertaining B horror film.
First, I must confess that I think that reading into the sexual themes is entirely too on the nose. At most, I see unnuanced use of established tropes in horror to effectively create an unsettling premise. Horror has long punished teens for having sex by killing them, and frankly, I think that, rather than being a deep thing here, it was heavy-handed. In fact, perhaps the most subversive thing this film did was keep the body count relatively low!
Even the opening victim sets the stage by dressing her in alluring yet innocent-looking sleepwear. She is running in red heels coming from her own home. Why these shoes if you are fleeing your house? The viewer can fill in the story with their own conjecture: Maybe she only has heels because it is all she wears. Maybe she was trying on new shoes for an outfit she was planning. All of this is irrelevant, however. It was an intentionally chosen costuming decision to invoke this exact trope. Even the positioning of her body on the beach highlights these choices.
Honestly, it is the film's least developed and most disappointing aspect! So, the fact that I had seen so much talk about how profound it was is shocking. Even the elements of incest in the film read as a means to create disturbing imagery—to add disgust for the viewer to heighten the sense of unease rather than add any deeper psychological element. In fact, this whole film closely resembles a familiar, recurring nightmare theme for many people (including my partner, who has had these dreams as long as I have known them)—being pursued relentlessly by a figure you cannot escape. In these dreams, there are often rules that the dreamer has to follow; in my partner's case, it can be having to shut all of the doors in the house before he is caught, and if they can, they "win." Of course, whatever is pursuing them is also opening doors.
This film reads to me as following this dream forumula and utilizes some common horror movie tropes to expand on the unsettling aspect of this dream state, overwhelming anxiety, and uncertainty. This, blended with the uncertainty of moving out of childhood into adulthood, creates a storyline that firmly plants itself in the slashers of the 1980s—exactly the aesthetic the director was clearly going for with filming technique, soundtrack, everything.
Speaking of which, this is where the film really shines. When stepping away from trying to find meaning where there is none, the aspects of the film that are right in front of you are the best elements! It is filmed so incredibly well. I don't know if they actually shot with film, but I suspect it is shot digitally with some excellent lens choices and algorithmic film effects in post. Truly, it is a gorgeously shot film, with wide open shots that cause the viewer to pan the frame looking for the "big bad" right along with the characters.
There also seems to be very consistent "rules" that the "monster" follows—consistent walking speed, can look like anyone, etc. However, the film breaks these rules or makes nonsensical choices regarding how the monster behaves? For instance, why would it break a kitchen window and then pause its pursuit after entry? Why would it throw objects into the pool at Jay if the objective was to fuck her to death? The storytelling here felt arbitrary and like a sloppy means to an end, which ultimately dampened the tension for me a bit.
Beyond that, some very pragmatic things were avoided AT ALL COSTS by the characters that cracked me up. So, if the one thing you know about this monster is that it moves at a slow speed but will always come, why is no one using math? Like, calculate the speed at which the monster appears to consistently walk, then calculate how far you would have to drive and at what speed to give you a specific amount of time (with a margin of error) that you would have between visits. Also, aside from moments like the beach scene where Jay lets her guard down (which, again, could be avoided using simple maths), if the creature moves at a consistent speed, then seeing it could be greeted by calmly going to your car and driving upon seeing the creature. Never leave before seeing it. By waiting, you will know exactly its starting point and can, therefore, calculate more accurately and give yourself more time. Stay in school and do your maths, kids! It just might save your life, lol!
Of course, dream logic determines this reality, not rationality. Like many horror films, there are silly and frustrating behaviors. It ultimately was not a massive draw against it, but it stood out as being quite funny to me. And this film actually was quite funny, and I believe intentionally so! So, at the end of it, the unintentionally funny bits felt at home.
Finally, before I keep going way out into the weeds on this one, there seems to be a lot of desire to lock up the ending of the film when, in fact, another strong choice in the storytelling, in my view, was to leave it ambiguous. Did Paul hire prostitutes to try to throw the monster off? Was the figure seemingly following Jay and Paul at the end of the film the monster, or was it simply a person walking? The point is that we don't know, and it took a fairly silly climax (that pool lol) and saved the film for me.
Overall, this is far from my favorite horror movie. However, it is somehow just charming? I did not think that was a word I would use to describe the movie when I started it, but here we are. I can definitely see myself watching this film again at some point.
*** ETA: After writing this, I did a bit of skimming online, mostly to find out if It Follows was shot digitally (it was and with an ARRI ALEXA Plus Camera, Red Epic Camera, Angenieux Optimo Anamorphic Lenses, Cooke S4 Lenses, and Fujinon Lenses), and I noticed that the director said the inspiration for the film was a recurring nightmare. I feel even more solid in my interpretation. XD
0 notes
Text
With Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse somewhere on the horizon, we have an update on Sony Animation's future plans for the web-slinger in theaters. You can find the latest details after the jump...
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse were critical and commercial hits, with the former winning an Oscar for "Best Animated Feature." Fans are anxious to see how the story concludes in the currently undated Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse, but what comes after that?
While we've heard of plans for a Spider-Woman spin-off, it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
That's likely a result of how much time has been spent on the latest Spider-Verse movies, though there's recently been chatter about animated movies revolving around characters like Spider-Punk and Venom being in the works.
There's even been talk of one or both having an R-Rating, but we now have an update on what's on the horizon courtesy of scooper Daniel Richtman (via Toonado.com).
He claims that Sony Animation is indeed developing at least two more Spider-Man animated movies.
Unfortunately, no further insights are offered. However, we expect Miles Morales' story to end with Beyond the Spider-Verse, especially with rumours of there being live-action plans for that web-slinger.
"It will be a very satisfying conclusion," producer and writer Phil Lord previously said of the upcoming threequel.
"It goes even more emotionally deep into the relationships between Miles, Gwen, Peter B., [and Miles’] parents."
"The big thing that’s interesting for Miles [in Beyond the Spider-Verse] is how do you deal with a sense of betrayal and turn it into something affirmative?” Lord added.
"And I think that the thing that we try to do with these movies is represent goodness and show how the love that the characters in the movie have for Miles translates into his growth and success."
That female-led project was set to feature Hailee Steinfeld's Spider-Gwen and Issa Rae's Jessica Drew, and we remain optimistic it will one day happen.
Of course, the failure of the female-led Madame Web is just the sort of spoke in the wheel a movie like that doesn't need, so only time will tell whether it makes it into theaters.
Talking last year, Lord's fellow producer and writing partner, Chris Miller, admitting that the thought of making more of these animated movies is a daunting prospect.
"These things are very exhausting, hugely ambitious, and take a lot of people working really hard and dedicating themselves to doing something new and special, so after each one we're all so exhausted," he admitted. "Knowing that we have another one that we have to finish is daunting in its own way because we wanna make sure that it’s as excellent as those that came before it, and surprising and new, and unlike anything you've ever seen before."
"So thinking about beyond doing this trilogy is quite terrifying."
Should Lord and Miller move on from the Spider-Verse, it's fair to say excitement for any future movies will be dampened, particularly as they seem to be the key ingredient to making these animated adventures work where Sony's live-action offerings so often fail.
#marvel entertainment#marvel#marvel comics#marvel universe#spider man#spider man into the spider verse#spider man across the spider verse#spider man beyond the spider verse#sony pictures entertainment#sony#sony animation#miles morales#spider verse
0 notes
Text
As someone who has seen 500000000 Les mis adaptations: It depends on what your friend is into, and what kind of media they generally like!
It also depends on your focus: are you looking to introduce your friend primarily to Les Amis, to Jean Valjean and Javert, or to Les Mis as a whole? (Also: consider how you got into Les Mis, and what your first adaptation was!)
my recs:
1. The 2012 film is the easiest and most accessible adaptation for a general audience, in my opinion, even for someone who isn’t a huge musical fan. (In fact, the movie kinda suffers as an adaptation for trying so hard to appeal to people don’t like musicals haha XD.)
Having tried to introduce people with other adaptations, I’ve found 2012 is the one that always grabs the people who aren’t already fans, even if they’re not super into musicals XD. The stage musical recordings are confusing to people who don’t already know the plot, even though the music is handled better. Other nonmusical adaptations are either Terrible, like the 2018 miniseries …..or they’re sadly often kind of boring to people who aren’t already huge fans of the story. Saying “72 is interesting for focusing on Marius” or “82 is interesting for featuring more of Les Amis” doesn’t interest the kind of person who doesn’t know who Marius or Les Amis are. I’ve noticed that while I can say things like “the 8 hour long 1925 silent film is the superior adaptation that captures the novel better” it’s only because I’m already emotionally invested in the story.
2012 isn’t the best adaptation but it is one of the most accessible to new viewers imho. It’s short short and conveys the emotional beats the most clearly for someone who has no pre existing familiarity with the plot of the novel. The settings are clear, the characters are clear, the general emotional thrust of the plot is clear— and there are enough fun weird choices (some good some hilariously bad) to keep people entertained even if they’re not familiar with Les Mis at all. The problem is that uhhhhh it has a lot of serious goofy flaws, mainly the director’s inability to understand how music works and the baffling cinematography choices. However the flaws are funny and it fun to talk about them during a watch party.
You say your friend doesn’t like musicals, which is fair— but If she’s willing to try 2012, try going with the “this is a very awkward goofy flawed imperfect adaptation, but it kickstarted a lot of fandom stuff and can give you a general idea of what the emotional thrust of the story is like.”
I also think 2012 is unique becayse most Les mis adaptations start out with a decent first half then fall apart after the convent time-skip, but 2012 starts out pretty meh and then gets really energized after the time-skip when the story moves to Paris.
The stage musical and recordings are what I recommend for “musical theater snobs” (affectionate) who care a lot about music being done well in a way that it isn’t in the 2012 film, and are willing to use Wikipedia or something to help themselves follow the plot. It doesn’t sound like your friend is super into musicals tho XD.
The Takahiro Arai Manga is an excellent excellent manga adaptation that everybody should read, a great loving thoughtful take on the story that deeply understands its messages and characters, and is a passion project of its writer. While it can be very over-the-top sometimes, and makes some of its own dubious changes, its probably the next best thing to reading the brick! Its really good!!! It’s split into four volumes though and will take longer to read.
(Just make sure you’re getting the Takahiro Arai manga specifically, not the other American “classics for Kidz” manga that are much poorer in quality. XD)
I think you should also show your friend 82 and watch it while explaining why you’re passionate about it— even if it’s not the first adaptation you guys check out together.
Anyway, these are my hot takes! Also if your friend is interested in trying to tackle the novel in bite-sized pieces, the @lesmisletters readalong of Les Mis is happening again next year! ^_^
What is the best adaptation to introduce my friend to Les mis?
So like the title said I want to introduce one of my friends to Les mis bc I know she will really like it and loves the themes of the story, she agreed to let me show her an adaptation to get her into it, but idk with which adaptation I should choose to get her into it
I've heard the shoujo cousette is good and complete (I've only watched the first episode for now) but I worry it might be too long for someone completely new to Les mis? Ik the musical is probably also a solid entry point but my friend also isn't really into Musicals so I'm not sure it's the best to get her into it but I could convince her to watch it she's not that much against them, but if there's a better entry point I'll take it
My favorite adaptation is the 1982 one but it's also very strange and I'm not sure how book accurate it is compared to other adaptations so idk if it'd be a good adaptation
So I'm not sure what adaptation to show her first and would appreciate any input to with what adaptation to introduce her to Les mis!
58 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Bad Movie Rules
Watching Bad Movies has become a thing we do on purpose now. In this age of media saturation, watching a bad movie has become more than something that can wreck your day. Now we can seek out horrible things to watch and argue about what's the worst! Isn't living in the future great kids? That arguing about what's worst though, therein lies the problem. Just by ratings the worst 5 movies on IMDB are:
Disaster Movie- The terrible parody version of films like Armageddon.
Manos the Hands of Fate- which…we will come back to.
Birdemic: Shock and Terror- You may have heard of this one, but the main complaint I hear is the "effects are terrible" of course they are, have you seen this thing? I'd be more surprised if they were great.
Super Babies: Baby Geniuses 2- A barely put together children’s comedy that isn’t even intended for the people that hate it.
The Hottie and the Nottie- Not even an incompetent movie so much as a misogynistic romantic comedy about a guy falling for the “hot” girl’s “ugly” best friend. Most of the complaints are that this stars Paris Hilton, and if you think she’s the worst actor ever…oh you sweet, summer child.
In my mind only one of these even has a chance at being the worst movie ever, because four of these things barely qualify as movies. If you want to enjoy a bad movie with your friends, none of these are going to be enjoyable. So I’ve come up with a list of guidelines that will lead you to the kind of hubris induced failure that is worth your time.
1- It must have had a theatrical release
If a movie didn't get a theatrical release, that means that the people behind it didn't think it was worth advertising the film. They basically decided they would rather wait till people watch it accidentally via streaming (or home video in the good old days). If they don't care about it, there's probably nothing worth seeing.
However, if a bad movie has had a theatrical release it means that someone believed in this movie enough to buy advertising, print posters, send it to theaters and charge people for the pleasure of seeing it once. And that is beautiful. This includes major releases on streaming platforms that are advertised like theatrical releases.
2- No Blatant Cash Grabs
Similarly blatant cash grabs don't count because no one really cared about this movie in the first place, not one person was actually attempting to create something. These movies were not filmed, they were manufactured. Complaining that these movies are bad is like complaining that spray can cheese is bad. What are you really expecting?
Cash Grabs Include:
Sequels: Sequels are predisposed to being awful because generally they aren't planned and a filmmaker is offered huge sums of money to make one even though they only really had one good idea. See also prequels. Can you blame George Lucas for making Episode I? It was free money, and he'd already used up his good ideas. Ditto whatever Star Wars sequel you don’t like: studios only make sequels because they know the public will watch them, so whose fault is it really?
Fool Your Grandmother movies: Anything by Asylum counts under this heading as it is all they do. Asylum never really expects anyone to watch Transmorphers. They just expect to make enough money to get by on people's grandmothers buying the wrong movie at Christmas, or someone pressing play because they “just saw an ad for that movie.”
Parodies and "Genre Comedies": These are really the same as above but they're basically just making the same movies expect filled with unfunny jokes and ultra low budgets. Basically only Mel Brooks ever knew how to do a parody right anyway. Speaking of-
3- No Comedies.
Drama- Quality= Comedy
Comedy- Quality= Misery
You don't really want to listen to someone tell bad jokes for two hours do you?
4- It has to have the best chance possible.
This is by no means an endorsement of the American movie studio system.
Just as a movie can be excellent because its makers made the most out of their small budget and limited effects, to be truly bad a movie has to squander every possible advantage it has. It's no fair calling something bad if it was made by a college student in Russia for $10. If someone makes a good movie with that it would be an achievement, if you make a bad movie with that it's expected.
This also applies to movies that are made for a niche audience: Christian movies, Sci-fi channel movies, Lifetime movies, etc. It's not fair to call a Christian movie the worst thing ever when that studio only accepts scripts from Christian filmmakers about Christian themes. They aren't playing with the same deck.
5- Someone Had to try.
This is the key to having a great bad movie experience. Just one person, who believed in the movie enough to give it their best shot. Whether it's a classically trained actor who's acting their heart out of a terrible script; a set designer who has amazing potential; or a brilliant director desperately trying to salvage horrible performances. All of these things can show you a glimmer of hope in an utterly terrible movie.
I ask you, dear reader, to keep these rules in mind as you follow me down the dark and unholy rabbit hole we’ll call Bad Movies with Brad. Sometimes we’ll adhere to these rules heavily, sometimes I’ll break one to show you a glorious exception to the rule. Sometimes I’ll show you the brutal aftermath of exposing these films to human test subjects, or as I call them, my friends. And maybe someday I’ll have a whole vault of these films that I can show Hollywood whenever they decide to remake them.
1 note
·
View note