#jewish actors who feel their characters have strong jewish influences

[lacependragon]

The first three things he does as Superman in this trailer:

Ask for help while vulnerable and be grateful for it.

Protect a child from a deadly disaster in a very gentle and soft way.

Fly.

Superman is fucking BACK baby.

David Corenswet as Superman/Clark Kent

Superman (2025) dir. James Gunn

[knightotoc]

Spock's deal as developed over decades:

logical, stoic, superhuman strength, superhuman precision, green blood, pointy ears, scientist, musician, vegetarian, friend to animals, telepath, hippie sympathizer, idealist

has more powerful emotions than humans, so he has to hide them

over years of cold professionalism, forms incredibly deep attachments to coworkers Kirk and Bones, even though their human lifespans are tragically shorter than his own

a complex reflection of an imperfect but remarkable and beloved real person (Nimoy's two biographies are called "I Am Not Spock" and "I Am Spock"); because of this, Spock is famously Jewish-coded and expressed many of Nimoy's strong personal values and creative ideas

historically significant gay interpretation by an important fandom and published writers; in the wider fandom, Spock's sex appeal surpassed the actual lead actor's

he has some romances as a young man, but he ultimately dedicates his life to the noble cause of Romulan reunification

bizarre alien libido on a fuck-or-die 7-year cycle; this silly premise is taken extremely seriously

difficult relationship with his Vulcan father and human mother

complex relationship with Starfleet, especially w/r/t Pike, Kirk, and Romulans

has a secret half-brother who darkly mirrors Spock's own struggles with emotions, forming bonds with other people, and faith in God

sacrifices himself out of pure, logical love and gets reborn through the misuse of a terraformer-turned-superweapon

the platonic ideal of a nerd

In 2009, Spock was recast, but this version is from an alternate timeline. There are two significant changes to the character, which are not as appealing to me, but I still appreciate them:

his homeplanet was destroyed. This enormous tragedy gives us a character who is much less stoic. In my opinion, this takes away from Spock's uniqueness. But as a Star Wars fan, I appreciate that Spock's grief for his planet gets to affect him in a way Leia's never did

he has a relationship with Uhura. This is a fun decision, especially as these characters had some chemistry in the original show, but it is a bit spoiled by the creepy tracking device subplot

This recast is a fundamentally different character. In my opinion the best thing about him is when they lean into that difference; Quinto's Spock knows about Nimoy's, and has profound feelings about his alternate self. This was handled beautifully after Nimoy's death, and I am grateful that his protege's version of the character got to grieve with us in the real world.

In 2019, Spock was recast for a second time, and this version is supposed to be the same character as the original. But they have made multiple changes to the character anyway, which I mostly dislike. I haven't watched SNW since I feel this interpretation of Pike is even more ableist than the 60s version, but I am trying to keep track of what this franchise is doing with their best character:

Spock now has an additional secret sibling, an adopted human sister Michael. The reveal that Sarek chose Spock over Michael for Vulcan Science Academy, which Spock refused anyway, is some fun drama. It makes me feel bad for Michael and angry with Spock, which is a bummer. I do not think we needed to have Trek's first Black woman protagonist anchored by her relationship to a legacy character. I enjoy their dynamic, but I don't see a fundamental mirror of challenging topics with them like I do with him and Sybok. And of course this bond isn't going to be able to influence Spock in the future, as his bond with Sybok will

Spock now also has dyslexia; I appreciate the representation, but again this isn't going to influence him at all in the future; Spock in "The Menagerie" is an ableist character by modern standards

he's in a love triangle with Chapel and T'Pring; to me this is OOC for all three of them, and unnecessarily makes original Spock into a big, insensitive jerk. While he is a passionate character, the whole point is that he controls his passion, even to the point of choosing his love for humanity over his love for individuals. His deep friendship with Kirk and Bones is only possible since they have grown old together, which is the main theme of the original movies

where'd the chest hair go

Peck's interview where he says they're pushing Spoimler and he enjoyed acting with Quaid because they're both from acting families = so this actor's input into this once highly personal character is just queerbaiting and nepotism

The reason I wrote this post is because, in the newest SNW ep (spoilers), Spock becomes somehow humanized and, as a result, happily eats bacon. First of all, "I love bacon" is like, the definition of cringe outdated internet humor. More importantly, this is a nonsensical and possibly offensive move for a character who is Jewish-coded and vegetarian. Vulcans can eat meat, but they choose not to as part of their strict code of ethics. Spock in particular has a deep love for all forms of life, and his telepathy even gives him the ability to understand every creature from the Horta to the whales. Of course Federation meat is synthesized, but, at least in my interpretation, I can't imagine Spock even symbolically enjoying eating one of the smartest animals on Earth.

Of course every beloved character will develop over time, sometimes even in prequels. But these changes ought to make them more complex, or more personal to a new creator. The things that made Spock special are draining away. He is becoming more fashionable, straighter, more ordinary. Most fans seem to enjoy the new version, but I am left reeling at these odd decisions.

[maxwell-grant]

You have done an (excelent) post on how to reinvent Batman as a Pulp Hero. Do you think you could do one to Superman as well? Or do you think it is impossible to do this with the progenitor of the Super Hero genre without transforming him in a totaly diferent character?

Well, you saying it as impossible only makes it seem ever more tempting of a challenge, but yes, it is a bit harder. I'm gonna link my Batman post here as a reference point.

Partially because Batman's a franchise I've thought extensively about for a long time in regards to what I like about it or how I'd like to approach if given the opportunity, which is not something I can really say for Superman until more recently the Big Blue to start orbiting my brain. I don't have years worth of redesigns or fan concepts saved on my galleries and files to comb through to pick and choose here, and my experience with Superman as a character is considerably different, in some aspects more deeply personal, and not really something I'd like to go into in this blog, at least not now.

Part of the reason why it's harder is also because Batman and Superman have very different relationships with their pulp inspirations. Batman was, ostensibly, a pulp character adapted to comics, a dime-a-dozen Shadow knock-off who picked up and played up diverging traits from other characters and gradually ran with them to gradually forge a unique identity. Superman right from the start was rooted in a much stronger conceptual underpinning: the Sci-Fi Superman and Alien Menace who, instead of being a tragic monster or a tyrannical villain, becomes a costumed adventurer and social crusader. Even the name Super-Man was taken from an early story of Siegel and Shuster about a telepathic villain who ends the story lamenting that he should have used his powers for the good of mankind instead of selfishness. I hesitate to call what Siegel and Shuster were doing “subversive” because that term's picked up a real negative connotation, and it's not like Siegel and Shuster were out to upend their influences (they were pulp aficionados themselves), but rather putting a more positive, new spin on them.

Which is why it also becomes a bit harder to do what I did with Batman and align Superman with some of his pulp-esque inspirations, like John Carter, Flash Gordon or Hugo Danner, without just making it "Superman but he's John Carter", "Superman but it's Flash Gordon", and "Iron Munro / Superman but everything sucks" respectively. It's harder to create a character that wouldn't feel reduntant and derivative at best, and actively contradictory to Superman at worst.

I guess if I had to come up with a "Pulp Hero Superman" take I liked, well first of all I'd have to take steps to distance it from the likes of Tom Strong or Al Ewing's Doc Thunder, those two are as good as it gets in regards to Pulp Supermen. I stipulated for Batman a "No Guns, No Murder, No Service" policy partially to distance my takes on Batman from all the "Pulp Batmen" that just add guns and murder and take Batman back to the barest of basics. Likewise, I'm adding a "No Depowered Science Hero" rule here, which means it's a take that's likely going to veer off a lot more into fantasy and probably enough tampering with Clark's character that it does risk becoming a different character.

Frankly I don't think I'm gonna succeed at doing these without just making it a new character entirely, because with Batman you can get away with just upending the character's aesthetic and setting and even origin and still keep it recognizably Bruce Wayne (in fact Batman does that all the time), which isn't really the case with Superman, who needs those to remain recognizably Superman as he goes through internal changes and character shifts. I guess what I'm gonna do here is more taking the building blocks of Superman/Clark Kent and see a couple new ways I can rearrange them to create a Pulp Superman

Perhaps something we can do is to scale back or recontextualize the "superhero" parts without diminishing Superman's role as a superpowered fantasy character.

One way we can start is by picking on that connection between Superman and the sci-fi supermen/alien monsters of pulps I mentioned earlier and play it up further, to create a Superman who's deeply, deeply alien in a way that no mild-mannered disguise or colorful outfit can really disguise, something so dramatically powerful and alien, that instead you could get tales about the kinds of ensuing changes and ripple effects this has on the world upon the The Super-Man's arrival. And for that I'm gonna have to quote @davidmann95's concept for Joshua Viers' absolutely stunning Superman redesign on the left side of the image above

The red, the goldish-orange and white, the alienness, the angelic, sculpted feeling, the halo, that innocently curious expression: it’s genuinely beautiful. Superman as a redeeming science-angel from beyond our understanding, as much past the uncanny valley of limited human comprehension as a Lovecraftian monster but tuned to the opposite key - you could spend an endless procession of human lifetimes trying and failing to understand this being, but all you’ll ever know for sure is that it is beyond you, and it knows you, and it loves you.

Superdoomsday from Earth 45, healed and transformed into the savior it was originally envisioned as? Some descendant of his, or a future of the man himself? An alien who picked up on a broadcast of Superman from Earth, and so inspired reshaped itself in his image to spread his ‘gospel’ to the stars?

Alternatively, to come back to Earth a little, many, many pulp characters and series were built off the antics and personalities of real people, celebrities getting their own magazines or serials or fictionalized takes on them, so perhaps one way to make a "pulp" take on Superman would be to emphasize a bit more of Superman's real-world roots, trends that inspired his creation directly or indirectly at the time. The Jewish strongman Sigmund Breibart and Shuster's interest in fitness culture, Harold Lloyd's comic persona, the rising "strongman" film genre in the early 20th century, actors Clark Gable and Kent Taylor that supposedly named his secret identity, Clark Kent being a socially-awkward journalist based of Siegel's own school experiences.

Maybe one start to an authentic Pulp Superman, who would still be Superman, would be to just ask the question "What if Superman was a real person and/or a celebrity, and they started making pulp magazines and serials dedicated to him? What would those look like?". You wouldn't even have to restrict it to just a story set in the 1930s, in fact you could even play around with the rise of new mediums over the decades.

This third one is a little closer to some plans I have for my own take on a Superman character, not necessarily what I would do with Superman proper but one of my ideas for a Superman analogue. Superman's a character I'll always associate strongly with childhood and childhood fantasy, and to tap into that I would emphasize the other end of the fiction that influenced Siegel and Shuster: comic strips, in their case specifically Little Nemo and Popeye.

In my case I would bring additional influences from some of the comic strips I personally grew up reading like Monica's Gang and Calvin and Hobbes, and I already talked a bit about Captain Fray in terms of how he’s a Superman character despite being a villain. I guess you could call this one "What if Superman was a public domain comic strip character, stripped of the importance of being the founding figure of a super popular genre or extended universe, and also was kind of ugly?".

He's not "Sloth from the Goonies" ugly, I swear I didn't actually have Sloth in mind when typing out this idea, I've never watched that film nor did I know until now that he actually spends the film in a Superman shirt. That's not really what I'm going for. Visually I was thinking of modeling my take on Superman heavily after Hugo from Street Fighter and his inspiration Andre the Giant, to really emphasize the “circus strongman / freak wrestler” aspect of Superman’s inspiration, particularly in regards to how Hugo’s SFIII version strikes a really great balance in making Hugo ugly and both comedic and fearsome in battle, as well as lovable and even a little dopey (without being outright stupid, like his IV self) in his victory animations and endings.

He's still Superman, he still goes on fantastical adventures to help people, he's still a deeply loving and compassionate soul whose face beams with joy and affection and who's got wonderful eyes and a great smile. It's just that this smile has a couple of mismatched stick-out teeth or some missing ones, and he's got a crooked smile some people take as smug or malicious, he’s got a strongman’s gut instead of a bodybuilder’s abs, his nose is a little busted (maybe he’s had too many crash landings), and his hair is a little wild or greasy, and he doesn't exactly have very good people skills because of how others usually react to him and, y'know, he doesn't get the kind of publicity Superman would get despite doing ostensibly the same things. He’s not deformed, he’s incredibly intelligent and capable, but in comparison to how superheroes are usually allowed to look, he might as well be Bizarro in the public eye.

It becomes a running gag that people tend to assume some nearby fireman or cop was the one who rescued the hundred orphans out of a burning building single-handedly, meanwhile he's getting accosted off-panel by police officers who think he set the building on fire, or think they can bully this weird man dressed funny. He goes to rescue old people in peril and occasionally they yell at him that they don't have any money. He doesn't get asked to lead superhero meetings or teams even though many in the community advocate for just how much he does for the world, he gets censored out of tv broadcasts or group shots (even his face is sometimes pixelated when they do show him), people invite him on talk shows and don't really let him talk or assume they got the wrong guy. He goes to rescue a woman dangling off a building, and then he gets attacked by like three different superhero teams who assume he must have kidnapped the poor damsel. He was the first superhero, he is the strongest of them all still, but he never really gets credit for it, it nor does he even want to. None of this at all stops him or deters him, except for some occasionally funny reactions.

This never really changes for him, he doesn't really earn people's approval nor does he have to, instead the stories, outside of the gags and adventures you’d expect from a comic strip, veer more towards others learning to be less judgmental and him learning ways to better approach people. He isn't any lesser than Superman just because he doesn't look like most people would want him to look and he doesn't have to look like Superman. Really I think we could use more superheroes that don’t look all so uniformly pretty.

Again, probably not a take that would work for Clark proper, but it’s one way I would take a shot at doing Superman with my own

I have other stuff in the works for this character but I'd like to keep them to better work on them for now, but yeah, these are three of my shots at developing a Pulp Superman.

Alternatively here's a fourth idea that's more pulp than all of these: Join up Nicholas Cage with Panos Cosmatos again, or whatever weird indie director he decides to pair up with next, and let them do whatever the hell they want with Superman. Give us Mandy Superman. Superman vs The Color Out of Space. Superman vs Five Nights at Freddy's. Superman’s quest to find THE LAST PIG OF KRYPTON. Anything goes.

[noconcernofyours]

Pinning Down My Kind of Movie

Warning: Wanky, self-indulgent ramblings about Hollywood auteurs to follow

A couple of days ago, I sat down with my housemate to watch Miami Vice (2006) directed by Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral) and starring Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx. Since we moved into our place, my housemate has gradually been exposed to my taste in movies, and the other day, sat in front of a strung-out Colin Farrell ordering mojitos to ‘Numb/Encore’ during an undercover sting, he finally confronted me with a crisis-inducing statement: “You know, I can’t figure out what your kind of movie is.”

If I am to be totally honest, it doesn’t take much to send me into an existential tailspin, but this observation got me thinking enough to want to sit down and write about it, so here we are. My name’s Daniel and I love movies! When I was a teenager, I was certain I wanted to be a film critic, so I started writing in earnest. The problem was I wasn’t that well rounded as a viewer. I confined myself to the world of comic book movies and Disney animation. I turned my nose up at pretty much everything else before realising that I didn’t actually know much or have much to offer about film. Instead, I turned to music criticism because that’s where my knowledge base is.

That being said, I still loved movies, and as the years have gone on, I have been rapidly expanding my film knowledge and broadened my horizons extensively. I got called a “film buff” for the first time recently, which really shocked me. I still don’t feel well-watched enough, or knowledgeable enough to fit a moniker like that. Maybe it’s imposter syndrome, but I really feel like I have a way to go yet.

My Letterboxd bio includes the phrase “admirer of film nerds”, and I think that admiration informs the entire way I look at the world of film. I read a lot of reviews and listen to a lot of podcasts by smart, unpretentious film obsessives like David Sims, Griffin Newman, Katey Rich, Karen Han and Bilge Ebiri, but that same admiration also informs the kind of films I enjoy the most. In confronting the statement from my housemate, I realised that while there are some genres I gravitate to more than others, my taste in movies is largely defined by the extent to which I can pick up on a single authorial voice driving the film. A director, writer, actor, composer or cinematographer who has a real, obsessive love for their craft whose influence and personality can be felt in every layer of a film’s construction. Franchises are a different beast, but it’s usually the entries in a franchise that feel like passion projects for individual filmmakers that I love the most, which is why Iron Man 3 is by far my favourite Marvel movie.

Over the last few months I’ve started building a fairly extensive Blu-Ray collection. I love physical media because I like to have a tangible representation of the art I love, but it also allows me to physically organise my thoughts about film rather than moving things around on a spreadsheet or in my head. It has also had an effect on how I watch films. Spending money on a film makes me feel more obligated to watch it through to the end in one sitting, to not be on my phone at the same time and to pay closer attention. It’s also made my approach to picking the films I watch more considered. I’ve been hunting down the films I haven’t seen by directors I love, fuelled by newfound completionism, and I’ve been subconsciously prioritising this kind of auteur-driven mindset in a way that has revealed, over time, who my favourite filmmakers are.

So, with that in mind, let’s transform this meandering, self-indulgent think piece into a meandering, self-indulgent listicle. Here are the filmmakers that have changed the way I watch movies:

Christopher Nolan

I know this is a bit of a film bro cliché, but I promise I’m not one of those film school douchebags who’s convinced they’re going to be the next great big budget auteur. Like a lot of other people my age, I discovered Christopher Nolan through the batman movies. I was taken to see The Dark Knight by my parents when I was 10 years old, not having seen Batman Begins, and it blew my mind. For years after that, I was one of those arseholes who had a terrible Joker impression that I whipped out at parties, until I became aware of the cliché and never did it again.

In the years since I’ve watched all of his other movies and gained a new love of Interstellar and The Prestige – movies that taught me a lot about the authorial voice and interweaving a central theme into every element of a film. I also learned that just because I find it annoying when the same tropes turn up in every Quentin Tarantino movie, recurring tropes throughout a filmmaker’s catalogue aren’t universally a bad thing.

The Coen Brothers

Representation is important. The tough thing about watching films from an auteur-driven perspective is that so many of the most important filmmakers in Hollywood are approaching their films from a white, Christian, male perspective. Scorsese is a particularly difficult director for me to appreciate because so many of his films are overtly informed by his Christianity. My Jewish identity is the most significant aspect of my identity, so naturally I’m always looking for films made from a Jewish perspective, overt or otherwise.

Whilst the Coen brothers don’t always make movies about explicitly Jewish characters or subject matters, their Jewishness always comes out in their writing, particularly in the totally undidactic way they approach the subject of faith in almost every film they’ve made. Their approach to God, fate, spirituality and religion is never one of moralising certainty, but rather a questioning one, which is a fundamental aspect of Jewish existence. I feel represented on multiple levels in the films of the Coen brothers, particularly in Inside Llewyn Davis which is my favourite film of the last decade, in ways that other directors could never manage. For the same reasons I will forever be excited about the potential of the Safdie brothers.

Stephen Spielberg

Whilst the Jewishness of Stephen Spielberg is a major attraction for me (Catch Me If You Can, his moody Christmas movie, comes across as weirdly Jewish to me), the thing that has solidified the guy as one of my favourite filmmakers is his approach to telling true stories. Unlike the Coen brothers, it’s Spielberg’s self-assuredness and didacticism that fuels my love of his work. His spate of recent, politically switched-on, historical dramas (Lincoln, Bridge of Spies and The Post) are all incredible achievements in effectively giving quiet dramas about people talking in rooms the tension and stakes of great action movies.

It’s the obvious thing to say at this point that Spielberg is one of the few genuine masters of the cinematic language, but while most will point to his massive, populist movies of the 80s and 90s as the definitive examples of that, I would point to his spottier late career with its moralising and earnestness as where his most exhilarating work lies.

Michael Mann

I like that Michael Mann is uncompromising. He makes films which, based on premise and star power, should be commercial knockouts, but they almost never are. He has an incredibly clear sense of self, and like Nolan has a lot of frequently recurring tropes in his films. Michael Mann makes films about Men Making Tough Choices™. He builds detailed, intensely researched worlds and he loves crime!

There’s something special when a filmmaker can tread the same ground over and over again and never convey the same central message twice. Nearly all of Mann’s movies are gritty, neo-noir thrillers with an obsessive attention to detail, but all of them deal with a totally distinct existential question which runs through every element of the film, from meta casting to set design, to music, to Mann’s pioneering use of digital photography. I’m just obsessed!

Stephen Soderbergh

Soderbergh is a hill that I’m going to be climbing for quite some time, I think. This is a guy who is relentlessly prolific, taking on a ridiculous number of roles on set himself, and working so fast that he often churns out multiple films in a year. With limited funds and a determination to watch movies legally, my progress through Soderbergh’s filmography has been slow, but I’ve loved every one I’ve watched so far.

As much as I love the guy’s mastery of the heist movie, and the way he slips those story telling devices into a lot of his non-heist stories, I think what really gets me about Soderbergh is the way his filmmaking style always seems to feel tooled towards portraying his characters with as much empathy as possible. Often his films are about people working or learning to empower themselves and coming to terms with their own identities. Anyway, go watch Out of Sight! It’s a damn masterpiece!

Kathryn Bigelow

Kathryn Bigelow’s career is full of insane ups and downs, but as far as I’m concerned, despite the difficulties she’s had getting her movies made and seen, she has three unqualified masterworks: Point Break, Strange Days and The Hurt Locker. On this list of directors, Bigelow has perhaps the most stylistically varied body of work, but her best work, much like that of other directors that I find myself drawn to, is largely concerned with obsession. Her characters are deeply flawed, but unwaveringly driven. What I love is that despite her drastic genre change from pulpy action thriller to hyper-realistic docudrama, she’s managed to hold on to that fascination with obsession, and an acute, outsider’s understanding of masculinity and its fragility.

Kathryn Bigelow has had to adapt to keep working, but because of that, she’s managed to develop a voice and a personality that is versatile enough to withstand her career shifts, but strong enough that it hasn’t been chipped away at by the difficulties she’s faced as a woman in Hollywood.

So, what was the point of all this?

Honestly, there wasn’t one. This was a piece of self-indulgence that allowed me to navigate an idea over which I was obsessing for a little while. That being said, I think if I had read something along these lines a few years ago, I would have delved into the world of director-focused movie watching far sooner. It’s hard to quickly and easily define the role of a director in contemporary film, particularly due to the ever growing influence of studios, but in the world in which the above filmmakers operate, the director has final say over all the creative decisions involved in putting together a movie. For me, the most exciting films are the ones that clearly and effectively communicate a single creative voice. Sue me, I love auteurs.

[langernameohnebedeutung]

to your expert german ears, how was the german in the Argentina bar scene in X First Class?

The bar scene!

So, first things first, the guys playing the Nazis hiding in Argentinia are respectively Wilfried Hochholdinger and Ludger Pistor who are German, don’t have an accent and are good to go. They don’t have the typical regional accent I’d associate with being from Düsseldorf. Instead they speak Hochdeutsch (Standard German) which means they don’t feel out of place either. I guess for their time they’d come across as a little snobbish speaking that way and the probably unintended implication is that they come from a pretty wealthy, educated background so it’s not unlikely that they were high-ranking officers and since that one guy insists that his father made the best suits in all of Düsseldorf, that actually seems likely.

Which leaves Michael Fassbender. (the bartender is German too according to imdb but he only speaks Spanish). I already once wrote about Fassbender’s accent when someone asked me how to get rid of their English accent when speaking German and I referenced the bar scene in Inglorious Basterds as a frame of reference.

I wondered for a a long time how much German Fassbender actually speaks (as much as I hate to speculate about actor’s private lives usually) but I always found it weird that his German seems a lot more natural to me in Inglorious Basterds than it does in this bar scene in First Class. My lovely friend @timemngmtoptimisationproblems who's an insider in the business suggested once it might be a budget thing and that re-shooting and changing a scene can be very expensive so maybe they simply did more shoots in Inglorious Basterds and gave him more instructions than they did in First Class? because IB definitely puts a strong emphasis on language. Plus accents and fluency actually have a huge influence on the plot of the film. Meanwhile in First Class, Fassbender and Bacon phone it in pretending to be native German speakers. (It’s kinda funny how the main-Nazi in the film is played by an American and one of the German main-characters is played by a Scottish guy, an Irish guy and … I’m not sure where the kids are from. And Nightcrawler was also not played by a German. But they actually imported real Germans for the roles of these two extras. I don’t mind but it’s…a strange priority to make sure that these two random guys who get killed after saying a few lines are native speakers)

Because I was curious about it, I read a few interviews a while ago where Fassbender speaks about his German background and he’s downplays it a lot and says he speaks very, very little. Basically a few words. Which honestly surprised me, because he does a pretty solid job acting out his German-speaking scenes, emphasising the right words (even if the doesn’t necessarily emphasise the right syllables) and he seems pretty effortless compared to that flashback scene with Schmidt young Erik who are clearly have to focus on their words. Also directors clearly seek him out to play Germans so he seems to have a reputation that he can do that. A lot of my questions were answered when I found an interview of the Dark Phoenix cast in a German show where Fassbender actually speaks some German with the interviewer (× - starting at 2.00) -and he seems to be the ‘understands more than he can speak’ type. He definitely can speak more than a little German and hold a solid conversation, but he struggles with finding the right words sometimes. That’s obviously not a problem when you have a script but it also explains while he seems as little…stiff with his pronunciation and phrasing sometimes and why he misses some mistakes in the script.

To answer your actual question – I said that Fassbender’s German is not as good as in First Class Inglorious Basterds, but he actually does a solid job. You can tell that he knows what the words coming out of his mouth actually mean. Which is rare when English-speakers play Germans. Not so rarely, we have to turn on the subtitles to figure out what’s going on. And yeah, we’re not the only one with that problem. So I’m really nit-picking here. His acting is fine, you understand him and he doesn’t do the thing where an actor makes an effort to ‘sound German’ by hissing and snarling and making weird guttural sounds.

Especially “Was hat Sie nach Argentinen verschlagen” und “Meine Eltern kamen aus Düsseldorf” almost sound native, although he does struggle with the “e”s a little (he either pronounces it too much or too little like an ä and honestly, I feel like a horrible person for faulting him for that bc it’s really the line between a perfectly fluent C2 German speaker and a native speaker to get something like that right. It’s really instinctive and not…a mistake, it’s just a very subtle difference and honestly, I do the same thing when I speak English.  

Another thing that English-speakers in particular struggle Is the German “r” (one good example of him getting it right is in Alien: Covenant in the final scene when he asks the computer to play “Das Rheingold” by Wagner) but here, we can tell he doesn’t quite roll it the way it’s supposed to when he says: “Was würden Sie gerne zuerst verlieren.” Which is a lot of r-s to be fair.

Now, for me one of the biggest issues is when he says his parents had his names taken away from them (….) “pig farmers”! And “tailors”! – because the preposition in the middle is missing, changing the entire impact of the comment depending on which preposition you mentally insert into that line.

What he says is: “Ihre Namen wurden ihnen weggenommen” *clinks glasses* “Schweinebauern! Und Schneidern!” – “Their names were taken away from them. Pig farmers and tailors.”

And yeah, there should be a preposition between that. It should either be:

“Ihre Namen wurden ihnen weggenommen – von Schweinebauern und Schneidern” – their names were taken by farmers and tailors” or –

“Sie hatten keine Namen. Ihre Namen wurden ihnen weggenommen. *clinks glasses* Auf Schweinebauer und Schneider!” - “Their names were taken away from them. (clinks glasses)(here’s TO) pig farmers and tailors.” – which would from Erik’s perspective be a really sarcastic way and cynical way of saying  “you false cowards are a dime a dozen and I know your type and I hold you responsible” while at the same time keeping them guessing about who he is and what he is about to do until he finally reveals the tattoo on his arm. So yeah, what he says is definitely wrong but also…you can’t just set it right in your head because…you don’t know what he is supposed to be saying. (according to the subtitles it’s supposed to be “von/by” which also fits that he’s using the genitive case instead of the nominative, but honestly, I would prefer ‘auf/to’ because that would be darker, sharper and wittier and really has that very peculiar sense of sarcasm that people associate with Magneto.)

In short – he really does a good job. He couldn’t trick anyone into believing that he’s a native German speaker, but I saw people comment that in the bank scene his French is better than that of the guy who plays the banker and that while he has a strong accent while speaking Polish, he still puts in a good effort so I’m going to commend him for consistently doing his best. It’s just weird that he…starts speaking English at the end of the scene which honestly. Doesn’t make any fucking sense whatsoever. Like imagine you’re speaking to some guy and you’re both English native speakers and there’s a Spanish guy in the room too and suddenly he starts speaking…Italian? That would be weird. But the scene is fine and the accent doesn’t really distract you from the gravity of the scene (like it does in that flashback scene in the beginning). Honestly, I’m probably not going to see the day they cast a Jewish German actor for the role of Magneto (and honestly, I give the first part priority over the German-thing because you can simply have actors speak English and pretend it’s German) but I also prefer having him speak German over speaking English WHEN IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO SPEAK ENGLISH. Imagine if they had kept the entire film in English. They would have avoided the weird accents in French, German and Russian AND I wouldn’t have had to wonder for the rest of the franchise why Magneto is speaking English in a particular situation. Why is speaking English to Schmidt? Why is Frankenstein’s monster IN ENGLISH? Why is he speaking English to his Polish daughter? Why is he speaking English to his Polish coworkers who are …. Factory workers in cold war Poland. He’s speaking English to god too. I know it’s to make these scenes more dramatic but at least be consistent. So yeah for me it's an either or situation in the greater context but the scene itself is good.

[cometomecosette]

How I picture the characters of “Les Mis”

This meme made me decide to write out my mental images of what all the main characters look like. Most of them are vague, based on a blend of Hugo’s descriptions and stage casting traditions. None of them are based on the movie cast, which has made it feel strange in the last several years to see most fan drawings of the characters become movie-based.

I hope other people will see this and share their images of the characters too. I’d love to read them, especially if they’re very different from mine.

Jean Valjean

Medium hight, barrel chested and bulky – not overweight, but more “big-boned” than “ripped.” At most the same height as Javert, more likely shorter, but heavier and more strongly built. Straight, longish, light brown/later white hair and a beard. (Yes, the Brick implies that he gets rid of the beard after breaking parole, but the musical’s stage history makes me picture it throughout.) Eyes either hazel or blue. A roundish face with solid, homely features (not ugly in the least, just completely ordinary) and a reserved expression. If you passed him on the street you’d be struck by his bulk, and by the stark whiteness of his hair in his later years, but he’s far from a Hugh Jackman-style eye-catcher; just a big, strong, average older man.

Javert

Tall, strongly built and imposing, as per Hugo, though more slender and less powerful than Valjean. Rigid posture. Dusky skin, in keeping with his Romani heritage. Dark brown hair; short in the Brick-verse, but musical-Javert has the long, elegant ponytail of stage tradition, regardless of anachronism. Huge forest-like sideburns, as per both Hugo and stage tradition. Brown eyes. A longish, rectangular face with a big square jaw, a snub nose as per Hugo (though less cartoonishly snub than Emile Bayard drew it) and a severe, dignified expression. The rare occasions when he smiles or laughs are, as Hugo tells us, terrifying.

Fantine

Medium height and slender. Long, luxuriant, sunny blonde hair, either wavy or curly; later messily chopped and extremely short. Bright blue eyes. Strikingly beautiful, with a slender face (though I can imagine a roundish one too, at least before she gets sick and loses weight), pale skin, a small straight nose, high cheekbones, and as per Hugo, pretty white teeth. A very classical, dignified type of beauty (as opposed to cuteness or, God forbid, sexiness), influenced in my mind both by Hugo’s references to Greco-Roman goddesses when describing her and by Ruthie Henshall’s look in the TAC. Though of course by the end of her arc, it all turns to emaciated, ashy ghostliness.

Cosette

At 16/17: Medium height and slender. A soft, roundish face like Raphael’s Madonnas, as per Hugo. Medium chestnut brown hair, worn in long ringlets. (Yes, I know she would have more likely sported a curled up-do, but decades of stage tradition have left their mark on my mind.) Bright blue eyes like her mother’s. A small cute nose – probably aquiline, given Hugo’s “Parisian” description, though I don’t always picture it as such. Innocently beautiful, in a way that blends her mother’s natural dignity with girl-next-door cuteness.

As a little girl: See Bayard’s iconic illustration. Just color the hair brown. (Though I’m also open to it being blonde at first, but darkening when she hits puberty, as sometimes happens.)

Marius

Medium height and slender. Boyishly handsome with rounded facial features, as per Hugo, and of course with “wide, passionate nostrils.” Pale skin, with no freckles (sorry, Eddie). Short hair, which I almost always picture as thick, curly and jet black, as per Hugo – though sometimes when I’m thinking only of the musical, I picture it straight and brown instead, or occasionally even blond. Brown eyes are my default image, though I’m open to blue too. As per Hugo, a generally reserved, serious expression, but with a wide, adorable smile when he’s happy; since musical-Marius is warmer and more outgoing than Hugo’s, I imagine that smile appearing more often from him.

Thénardier

Short, scrawny and bony, as per Hugo, though I’m open to picturing musical-Thénardier as slightly taller and/or more solidly built. Longish, stringy brown/later gray hair. No clear idea of eye color: probably either brown, green, or pale blue. A thin, angular face with a wide mouth, a sharp nose and bad teeth; I’m prone to picturing his nose as prominent, but I know that’s a cliché for greedy characters based in hateful Jewish and Romani stereotypes, so sometimes I force myself to imagine it smaller. Brick-Thénardier grows a long, scraggly beard in poverty, as per Hugo; musical-Thénardier just has a permanent five o’ clock shadow. 

Mme. Thénardier

Huge and intimidating, as per Hugo. Obese, tall (taller than her husband in the Brick, though musical-Mme. T. might be the same height or slightly shorter), frumpy and masculine looking. Thick, wavy cascades of red/later graying hair. Blotchy skin, as per Hugo. Big, walnut-smashing, child-punching fists. A big face, either squarish or round (Hugo’s description of her as both “fat” and “angular” is hard to imagine, so my brain often defaults to the roundness of most stage actresses), with a snub nose and small, piggy blue eyes. As per Hugo, Brick-Mme. T. has a few chin hairs and a protruding lower tooth, but I don’t picture those details in the musical.

Éponine

Tallish and very thin. Light to medium chestnut brown hair (lighter and more reddish than Cosette’s), naturally straight but stringy with filth. (This is fluid, though – now and then I picture her with dirty strawberry blonde hair instead, or with thick, wild dark curls). Eyes either blue or green. Tanned skin and maybe some freckles. Bony, angular features with a fairly strong nose and wide mouth like her father’s, though musical-Éponine’s face is softer. Brick-Éponine has all the ugly marks of poverty Hugo describes: wasted figure, missing teeth, bleary eyes, etc. Musical-Éponine is prettier, but not a striking beauty either, just an average girl who’s prettiness you’d notice if you looked past the layers of dirt.

Enjolras

Tall, slender and lightly muscular. Angelically handsome, just as Hugo writes, in the vein of a Greco-Roman statue. Luxuriant blond hair; I most often picture it long, wavy and in a ponytail (since I saw that look onstage first), but I can easily picture it short and curly too, especially with Hugo’s Antinous comparison. Bright blue eyes. Pale skin with rosy overtones “like a young girl’s,” as per Hugo, yet with clear masculine strength in his build. A slender, eternally youthful yet dignified face, with a straight nose, strong chin and quietly stern, ever-determined expression. Again, see the statues of Antinous as a reference.

Gavroche

Average height for an 11- or 12-year-old, but scrawny. Tanned and maybe freckled, like his sister. Light to medium brown hair; I instinctively picture it short and straight like most boy actors’ hair onstage, but I know Hugo saw it as a thick, crazy tangle of curls, so I can imagine that too. No fixed idea of eye color: probably the same as his father’s. A thin face, plain yet bright and expressive, with a wide and loud mouth like his father’s and sister’s. I admit, I imagine him better looking than the wild, ugly little thing Hugo envisioned, but that’s probably true for most of us.

Grantaire

See above: I know my vision of Grantaire isn’t nearly as ugly as Hugo’s, and I don’t imagine him with the huge mustache Hugo sketched him with, but at least I’m not alone in that. I picture him medium height to tall and on the slender side, though I can possibly see him as heavier too. Long or at least longish hair, medium to dark brown, straight yet messy. Brown or hazel eyes. A nondescript face, either round or squarish: I don’t exactly have a clear vision of it, because I know he should be ugly, but I’ve never seen an ugly actor in the role. Based on stage tradition, I tend to picture him with a permanent 5 ‘o clock shadow.

[coldtomyflash]

So I've been following your tumblr for a while now, and I've seen everything you've had to say about the crossover. I should preface this by saying that I am white with no Jewish ancestry. So I suppose my place isn't the question, because this does not affect me directly. However: I do not understand how showing Nazis as villains is a bad thing. I am not questioning that it hurts people. I've seen that it clearly does. What I question is "Why?" I don't grasp why Nazi=villains is a bad thing.

I’m going to be bluntly honest here. I had to mentally dismiss about ten blithe responses to this that were on the order of that now-infamous tweet “I don’t know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.” I know that’s not what you’re saying, but I struggled, when I read this, to grasp how you could say that you see the harm (hurt) it is causing and yet don’t see that it’s wrong. 

And how it could be true that you’ve actually read this post, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and some of the other stuff I’ve put in my tag for the crossover, and yet still be confused about this. And one of those posts, mind you, explicitly explains why it’s more than just “they made Nazis the villains of the crossover”.

And part of why I was tempted to answer blithely is because, given all that, I think it’s been explained time and again what the issue is here, and how it goes so far beyond the fact that them making Nazis the villains is the problem. The other part is because to re-explain it, to break it down to its elemental components? That takes time - hours from the time I started thinking about this to the time I’ll be done writing it - and energy - in terms of research and resources. I’m doing a lot of labour for you, emotionally and physically here. And part of me wants to shirk that labour, to put it on you to do it.

But… I can’t. Because I can answer your question, at least from my own perspective, and it is an important one to answer. Because before I understood just how much my own privilege impacted how I see the world and started to actively push back against it and expand my perception, I probably wouldn’t have fully understood either.

So I can’t explain this as eloquently or succinctly as some other people. And I can’t explain this from the perspective of someone who’s directly being harmed by this crossover (because I am also white and a gentile). And I’m sure many people people who are direct targets of Nazis would tell you that “isn’t it enough that it is harming me?” and they would be right, full stop. That would be an acceptable answer.

But I’m going to do my best to give you the understanding I genuinely think you’re looking for, allowing for the fact that others may have more to add or clarify, and allowing for the fact that my answer is inherently limited by my privilege.

I trust that you’ll read to the end, even though it’s long. And if at the end you still can’t understand, or you think I’m exaggerating, then I urge you to think on this, to sleep on it, and to read more and more about it. And even without understanding, to respect the voices of the Jewish (and gay, and Rroma) people who’ve spoken out about these problems time and again when things like this crop up. Amplify those voices, even if you can’t see the long-term ramifications of why this is ‘Bad’ yet.

First, the issue here cannot be reduced to “Nazis are the villains of the crossover.” Because that [.] at the end is actually a […]. It really goes like this: Nazis are the villains of the crossover…

… and the premise is based on the notion that Nazis won and have world domination.

… and that premise implies that Nazis are so powerful that with a bit of ‘bad luck’ in history, Nazis could have won.

… and that premise contributes to the mythic aggrandizing of Nazism that makes so many people Nazi sympathizers or apologists.

… and many heroes doppelgangers are Nazis. 

… and Jewish-coded heroes’ doppels are Nazis.

… and a Jewish-coded hero who came to earth at age 12 and was raised on better principles than that still became a Nazi.

… and that notion spits on the original intent of the Jewish creators of these characters.

… and all of this implies that “good and heroic” people can still turn out to be Nazis, undermining the very message heroes should send. (Being a hero only when it’s easy is not being a hero at all. Doing the right thing when it’s against what society enforces is what makes them heroes.)

… and this turns the heroes that people (including Jewish people) look up to for hope and comfort into symbols of hatred and genocide.

… and the Nazis interrupt an interracial marriage between a Black woman and a Jewish-coded hero (who is canonically Jewish in parallel media like the DCEU) for the sake of drama.

… and the Nazi doppelganger outfits are designed to look ~*sexy*~ to an uncritical viewer.

… and the ~*sexy*~ doppel outfits include genuine Nazi symbols from WW2, which are pretty damn triggering to a lot of people. (But yet no sign of a swastika because that would most likely turn those uncritical viewers too far off).

… and they’re ~*sexy*~ enough that people already want to cosplay that Nazi and buy merchandise of that Nazi paraphernalia.

… and the promo photos show that a Jewish woman and a Black woman are going to be targeted specifically, thus capitalizing directly off threats and violence to actual historical victims of the Nazis.

… and the promo photos treat Wellsobard (many people’s fave villain) as an allusion to Dr. Mengele, one of the most infamously disgusting and reprehensible people to ever exist.

… and the promos show us images of a gay character and actor wearing a ‘Pink Triangle’ once again being used as a symbol of hate and shame.

… and there is a good chance that a Jewish character (Martin) is going to get killed off during this crossover.

…and the storyline is likely focused on the love story between a white gentile and a Jewish woman who gets targeted by his evil Nazi doppelganger.

… and the shows already have a history of antisemitism by putting a Jewish woman in a gas chamber (wtf Arrow), killing a Jewish one-off villain with radiation in a compressed chamber (Atom Smasher, wtf The Flash), erasing the Jewish identity of some characters (e.g., Ray Palmer) and failing to mention another’s (Martin’s) in three seasons (c’mon Legends), and no-doubt more.

… and … this list goes on. It really does. This is not exhaustive.

And you might be tempted to think “but if the Nazis are defeated, and shown unequivocally to be the bad guys, then isn’t it okay? Isn’t it historically accurate that the Nazis would target the Jewish and Black and LGBTQ characters and wear Nazi symbols anyway? Many of the main producers are Jewish or gay, they’re not trying to say anything good about Nazis.”

So this is where we have to talk about narrative framing, implicit associations, and sociological implications.

The concept of framing in psychology deals with how we can present the exact same information in different ways and get vastly different responses. How we present information, even paired down to simple basic statistics, massively impacts how people internalize and encode that information and therefore how they respond to it.

In narrative, we know that how we frame a character’s motives and background influence how they’ll be perceived by the audience. So many heroes in action movies kill and murder their way through a scene, but their crimes are justified by the narrative frame, whereas the villain’s won’t be. Or in order to humanize villains and make them sympathetic, the narrative may shift the viewer’s paradigm by re-framing the information: yes this villain is an asshole who hurt your favourite character, but they’re doing it because of [x].

So when we look at the crossover, we have to interrogate how it’s being framed. Are the Nazis villains? Yes? Good, check. … But the Nazis are also doppelgangers of our beloved heroes?… Okay, right off the bat, that’s bad. 

That will make some people inherently sympathize with the Nazis doppels and like them. We have an emotional and automatic response to these faces, to these people, that is going to work faster and parallel to how our conscious brain responds to them, and many viewers (those who don’t have an automatic and massively negative knee-jerk response to the premise or the symbolism already built in) will have to be consciously and continuously inhibiting any decision to feel some positive sense toward those characters, and many viewers aren’t going to put in that conscious effort, especially not while the narrative is so distracting. 

(For the record, if you consciously create this negative association it’ll become automatic. We aren’t born hating Nazi symbolism, we encode associations to it, and if you continuously encode negative ones, then you’ll hate other things associated with that symbolism too!)

So now in the crossover, by how our brain creates associations, if we have a positive association with that hero, there is an association now between that hero and their doppelganger, and that doppel and Nazi symbolism. That creates a link between positive feelings and Nazi symbolism. Say what? Look, our brains are simple in their associations and categorizations. There’s ways around this, but if we leave these associations unchecked, this can happen. Especially for viewers who won’t recognize and understand the symbolism like the ‘SS’ on Overgirl’s chest (i.e., younger viewers who are most impressionable and who the education system has seriously failed, and privileged viewers who weren’t taught to have strong negative associations to these less well known Nazi symbols). 

And we already know this is happening. This is literally why we have articles on popular press outlets saying they want to buy merch of Overgirl (Supergirl’s Nazi doppel)’s outfit, which is literally emblazoned across the chest with Nazi symbols. People are saying they want to buy actual Nazi merch and the crossover hasn’t even aired yet. Just… let that sink in for a sec?

So. 

That’s one reason why making heroes as Nazis is bad, and why making Nazis sexy is bad. Because of the automatic associations our brains make with those beloved characters, and even with attraction. If we find something attractive or beautiful, we tend to have automatic associations with that as ‘good’. Beautiful = moral is one of the stronger associations we have and it’s reinforced by media time and again. (Conversely to ugly = evil, or evil = queer. And female villains are often designed for sex appeal but it’s misogynistic anyway because it deals with a lot of bullshit about feminine purity and evil seductresses, and still conflates these associations our brains are going to make).

And look, it’s 2017. We have Richard Spencer the literal Neo Nazi on TV and articles about how this ‘alt-right’ leader is sexy and cool. We don’t need DCTV to jump on the bandwagon of making Nazis seem “cool”. Human beings experience approach motivations toward things we find attractive. The only option is to experience disgust and anger in response to people like Spencer and characters like Overgirl, or else we may fall prey to the implicit associations put forth by the media itself.

And that’s the problem: the media (the DCTV shows) are putting these associations there and forcing the viewers to work against them if we want to watch this and not come out of it as worse people for it. It’s designed to be entertaining and thrilling and they spent millions of dollars making it that way, and so much of that budget went to making the villains what they are.

So it’s not enough for them to say that Nazis are the villains or even to show them getting their asses kicked if they set the Nazis up to start as all-powerful world dominators. It’s not enough to have these characters say “I hate Nazis” when they show their doppels as Nazis and capable of those atrocities.

And if you’re starting to think “there’s an important message here. About how Nazis can look classically attractive but we shouldn’t be taken in by that, and about nature versus nurture and how we need to actively push back against evil within ourselves or else, in another dimension or if things had gone different, even we could be evil.”

That’s… tempting to argue. It’s an important message, to be sure. But given the stylized outfits and triggering imagery and the way they’ve set up the narrative, I don’t anticipate that’s the message we’re getting here. I mean, I think it’ll come up, most definitely, but I don’t think it’s what the viewer is ultimately going to take away from this. Not in the “I need to look within myself and push back against my own biases” sort of way. That’s not the way they’ve framed this.

And for a comparison point, if you want a narrative that says “White supremacists are all evil, don’t get taken in by one who seems ~reasonable~ and looks normal, and see what these modes of thought actually look like” then watch the movie Imperium (2016) and see how they handle it. (And then compare that to American History X, which apparently some Neo Nazis like, even though it’s inherently anti-Nazi, because it paints them as being powerful and is full of the visual symbolism they uphold).

Because the way they’re currently framing the CW crossover, it’s really just about amping up the drama? And they’ve capitalizing on intergenerational trauma of the Jewish community and the collective trauma of the Holocaust to the gay community. And I’ve said elsewhere that I have no doubt the intent was good, but good intentions aren’t enough. 

If the producers don’t understand the damage they can cause by making ~*sexy*~ Nazis literally capable of world-domination (they’re not, they never were, they were superstitious and put genocide and hate over actual scientific advancements and their disgusting experiments on humans didn’t teach us near as much as people pretend they did), and re-writing heroes as Nazis (which, if anyone recalls, created a huge outcry when Marvel wrote Captain America as a Nazi) then regardless of their intent, they need to rethink their storytelling. Or if they really think that the right way to make a statement about the rise of Neo Nazism in the wake of the Trump election is to put the ‘SS’ symbol on Supergirl’s chest and make Eobard into Dr. Mengele, to recycle imagery of actual Nazis from WW2 and put a pink triangle on a gay man’s chest in 2017…. they don’t get it. Whatever their intent and regardless of where they’re coming from, they don’t fucking get it.

Sorry, I’m getting worked up. My point is that if they wanted to make a statement about things today, there were a million better ways to do it, and I could list at least 5 off the top of my head right now. But those would be more controversial, harder to pitch and sell, and not as stylized or easy to promote. So stylish Nazis is what we got. And that’s just… such a problem, including literally the ‘stylish’ part of that sentence.

Nazism and white supremacy are inherently performative. Nazis were all about the #aesthetic. They aligned themselves with famous designers for their uniforms. They had the villainous dramatic flair, and they used it to their advantage. Having that in the crossover might be historically accurate, but it falls right into what the Nazis themselves do: make themselves look good to amp up this notion that they are good. 

And a problem with depicting them this way (instead of making them pathetic, vacuous, hate-filled to the point of self-defeat, self-important to the point of being ultimately silly and sad, punching down their notions of grandeur) is that actual Nazis like it. They like being portrayed as sexy, powerful, and cool. And depictions like that help them with their recruiting. “Look, isn’t Overgirl sexy? She’s like our mascot. They know that when we take back this country from foreigner invaders, this is how it’s gonna look.” Because they say when, not if, and they recruit by framing themselves as the victim in a struggle against invaders and usurpers. Make no mistake, white supremacy is a victim complex of untold proportions and having attractive, fan-favorited characters championing their cause helps spread their message.

But let’s get back to the crossover’s broader sociological message and stop talking about actual modern-day Nazis for a sec.

Nazis have been the villains in DCTV before. On Legends in 1942, and with Damien Darhk (again, actual literal Nazi, and again, the narrative has made him “entertaining” in the eyes of some viewers and keeps bringing him back over and over as a villain?). Nazis have also been the villain in pop culture for half a century. Indiana Jones. Star Wars comes to mind in particular. They’re not shy about the fact that their villains are explicitly based on Nazis and the Nazi regime. Which is working out so well considering how many people are mooning over Kylo Ren when he’s a genocidal fascist who murdered his own father (”but it’s okay because he’s just misunderstood, and by that I mean I find the actor attractive and I, too, have anger and angst so I identify with him, this Nazi”). At least in Star Wars it’s figurative, I guess?

And the thing about these narratives, the problem with these narratives, is that they fictionalize Nazis. This isn’t necessarily a reason to vehemently boycott these media or rail against them, but just, as a general phenomenon that’s happened over time, many people - and by this I mostly mean privileged people and people who don’t feel particularly targeted by Nazism - tend to think of Nazis as this cinematic enemy. This prop, this simple narrative device. This way of commenting on the past more than the present, or alluding to something about the present as a mere metaphor, and that metaphor tends to go over the heads of half the viewers anyway because most people aren’t taught to critically evaluate media except in high school english classes that no one takes seriously.

And fictionalized Nazis don’t look like real Nazis in the 21st century. So when real Nazis do gather, many people don’t realize just how bad that is, just how violent their coming together is going to be, and just why need to fight back against such demonstrations and against letting Nazis have any space or voice in our society. It’s like that “this is fine” dog cartoon where he doesn’t see an issue until the house burns around him? Making Nazis into a fictional narrative device can make it harder for many people to actually see the flames burning around them, because they’ve been taught that “real” fires look different than the ones already starting to burn their house down.

Finally, I’ll just come back to point number 1: this is hurting people. In a way that going to 1942 and letting Mick Rory roast Nazis didn’t. And as privileged individuals, we have a responsibility to call out and call attention to the issues in this media and to amplify others’ voices. But as human beings more generally? We also owe a duty of compassion to others. 

Sure, there are a lot of people who aren’t hurt by this, but there are a lot who are. Who are shaking and sick to their stomachs and afraid for what’s happening in 2017 and how the tides of the world are turning. Who worry that this crossover is just another example of how casual people are about Nazism and who worry about everything I’ve listed here in detail as the broader effects of media like this and its current framing, even if they don’t have the language to articulate it all in one place like this. People who feel these effects, and feel the target on their back.

We owe those people some compassion, yeah? So when they say it hurts, we don’t need to say: why? That can come later. Our first question should instead be: how can I help?

[posterchildrenaudiobook-blog]

The Posterchildren Audiobook is reopening auditions for certain roles. Although we got a lot of amazing submissions, we want to do one more call for auditions.

In general we are looking for more adult voices. This has less to do with the voice actor’s age and more the tone of their voice. Although all characters listed below are reopened for auditions, Amira bint Balqis and Mercy Bliss are two in particular we are actively searching for more auditions for.

In addition to the adults, we are also looking for more auditions for Malek ‘Mal’ Underwood.

If you have auditioned for any of these characters, it does not mean you did not get the role. We are short more mature-sounding voices in general, hence the second call. If you have already auditioned but want to send in another audition for one of the roles below, you are more than welcome to.

We are also reopening auditions for The Narrator.

Full list of the characters reopened for auditions under the cut, as well as how to audition for them.

We are open for auditions for these characters until October 29.

In addition to your audio clip(s), please include the following information in your email. Please send all auditions to posterchildrenaudiobook@gmail.com.

Your Name: Pronouns: Ethnicity: Age: Are you okay with being cast in a smaller role? Y/N

You do not have to match the gender identity of the character you are auditioning for.

You are welcome to audition for multiple characters, and we may ask you to read for a character that you did not audition for.

Please note, this is not a paid project.

THE NARRATOR To audition for the Narrator, please record yourself reading 60 seconds or so of a book. It can be any book, although something that is YA fiction is preferred.

Please remember that being the narrator does require more of a time commitment than one of the character roles.

Malek ‘Mal’ Underwood 14 year old boy, Arab (raised in Oregon) Mal is extremely intelligent, driven, and focused on being the best. Sometimes seen as uncaring or cold, he actually just struggles to express himself. He makes friends with difficulty, but once he sees you as a friend he is absolutely loyal. The child of two of the most famous heroes of this world, he knows people are looking at him to show weakness or to reveal that he is destined for a fall, like his older brother. He will not let this happen.

Line 1: (factual, insensitive) “So. Sixty-seven. I was reviewing your scores. A two in strategy…a one in acting…you realize that you need to break one hundred if you want to join any law enforcement agency upon graduation, don’t you? And your combat score. Unfortunate.”

Line 2: (struggling to open up) “Allow me to be frank. My score has put me at a severe disadvantage. If Zipporah and I are to graduate into the capstone class, it is imperative that we pick up as many of those extra points as possible. And to that end, we may require your help.”

Line 3: (dangerous) “You have a habit of not listening, and I have a habit of losing my temper. One of us is going to have to break his habit. And I swear to you that it will not be me.”

Line 4: (genuine) “You’re not terrible, Zipporah Chance. Not all of the time, at least.”

John Wright adult, white Ernest’s father, one of the most well-known heroes in the world. Superman meets a golden retriever.

Line 1: (proud) “When’d you get so big, kiddo? Can’t really call you my li’lanything anymore, can I? Good God Almighty, I can hardly even call you my little man. Just look at you.”

Line 2: (angry and mourning) “I’m sorry. I can’t do this. A week ago, most of you were screaming for his blood. Well, you got it. You got him.”

Amira bint Balqis adult, Arab (Lebanese/Ethiopian) Malek’s mother, one of the most well-known heroes in the world. A master strategist, known for her poise and composure.

‘English is Amira's third language; she grew up speaking Arabic and French at home, although she has lived much of her life in English-speaking countries. When she was a young girl, she tried to hide her accent, but by the age of twelve she gave up trying to mask it, having realized that she would be viewed as Other regardless. The French influence is most readily apparent in her accent, which grows stronger when she is tired or emotional.’ - taken from Amira’s page on the Posterchildren Wiki (not spoiler free)

Line 1: (honest) “You say that you see flashes of something inspirational in him. Is it so difficult to imagine that he sees something in you that inspires him as well?”

Line 2: “If you think that you will get anything out of me without so much as a hug hello, you severely underestimate my ability to withhold information, my handsome son.”

Marshal Underwood adult, white One of the most famous rogue former heroes, the brother of Mal and Ellie, the son of Corbin and stepson of Amira. Has a temper, and once he gets his teeth in something he’ll die before he lets go. His charm often surprises people, and he’s not a bad guy, whatever the tabloids might say. He just doesn’t care about the rules.

Line 1: (furious) “You had three years with him. Me? I had sixteen. I was his partner. His son. You were a disappointing little surprise. So be a lamb and tell me what the hell it was you did that got him killed.”

Line 2: (apologetic) “I’m a fuckstick.”

Madam Ghostlight quite an old lady An actress and a former spy. Very wise, knows more about the history of the school than anyone. Professor Trelawny meets Peggy Carter, but Jewish

Line 1: “And that, my dears, is the power of the light touch. Ordinarily, mind control is an invasive and unpleasant affair. The usual methods are nothing short of rapacious, which I find—  Repulsive. In my experience, so much can be gained through a light touch. I received more information than I asked for, and I got it in a way that was kind to my target.”

Sofia Galan-Grant adult, Latina Tenacious and stubborn, a loving mother and wife. Very clever, often shows her affection with teasing.

Line 1: “And then you turned into Rambo, mi querida.“

Mercy Bliss adult, African-American The school nurse, and a luck manipulator, so a kind and caring lady who is very good at looking on the bright side.

Line 1: “Well, if it isn’t my favorite bucket of sunshine. I hope you haven’t gone and got yourself banged up again. Isn’t it a little early in the day for running your pretty little face into walls, Zipporah?”

Scott Carter adult, white A self-professed nerd. Awkward and enthusiastic. The history teacher.

Line 1: “So going into this merger of main characters, I want you to think about your histories. In an essay of five hundred words or more, give me your origin story. Who are you? How did you get here? What does being a posthuman mean to you?”

Cat Newmeyer adult, white Sports bubble-gum pink hair and a bunch of colourful tattoos, is also one of the toughest people around. Confident and bubbly with a very solid base of ‘could take pretty much anyone in a fight.’

Line 1: (pumping up a group) “The rules of Scavenge are easy-peesie-lemon-squeezie. This is what you’ll be looking for. We call them the glow jugs! My assistant, the lovely Kirrily Quinn, will demonste the proper carrying methods.”

Jasper James adult He’s scrappy in every sense of the word, and the youngest teacher on staff. Excited about combat, and can come on a little strong at times.

Line 1: “Dodging knives isn’t considered an athletic skill? Okay, okay. I get it. You’re not feeling the practical applications lesson. I can respect that, I guess. So how about we take this party outside and do a few rounds of rock-paper-scissors?”

Sal Santini adult, Italian-American Relaxed, patient, and very dangerous.

Line 1: “I also figured that you won’t let me die without hearing me out. So now that we’re both in danger of being dead men come dawn, I’ve got your full attention, don’t I?”

Kirrily Quinn adult, Australian

Line 1: “Strewth, give the woman a drum roll already! Give her a drum roll, or we’ll be here all night.”

[thenewgrlsclub]

Cinema as Resistance: Women Who Speak Out Through Film

Published on February 3, 2017 by Sabrina Luppi

It feels like a lot of people are finally beginning to recognize the problems with our society and government that many communities within America have been fighting against since it was founded. Government and big business “overlooking” treaty rights and general public interest for the sake of profit is not new. Police brutality, especially as it affects communities of color, is not new. Misogyny, racism, classism, homophobia and general unfounded hatred of “the other” have been curses on humanity for as far back as our records go.

The actions of our government and other oppressive systems over the past… well, honestly forever have been motivating communities and leaders to mobilize for just as long. If the actions of our new administration regime have just recently begun to mobilize you, you are (clearly) not alone. The uprising that is taking place nationwide is powerful, and we have to keep it up.

While marching, contacting representatives and general civil disobedience have proven to be powerful tools of resistance. I think it’s useful to also recognize the impact that cinema can have in educating and inspiring movements. From fictional narratives that serve as metaphors for our society to documentaries that bring to light the perspectives we weren’t exposed to in school, films have been known to help us see things more clearly. [Side note: this just reminded me of one of my favorite quotes, “There is no better way to exercise consciousness than movie-watching, a recursive, reflexive mirroring loop that reveals us to ourselves.” - Jason Silva].

So this week I wanted to share with you some films made by women that express female perspectives on social and political environments. Some of these directors documented movements, some tell the stories of activist leaders, and some told fictional stories of powerful female characters. Maybe this will inspire you to create some art of your own or to support the people who are already working on projects like these. Either way, the act of listening to and sharing non-hegemonic perspectives is itself an act of resistance.

Daisies (1966) Directed by Vera Chytilová Vera was no stranger to censorship in her country of Czechoslovakia. Her graduate film, The Ceiling (1962) was about empty materialism and exploitation in the fashion industry and prompted an audience member to proclaim that, “Such a film should not be made…”. Daisies was so shocking to the government that they banned it from theaters.

The Watermelon Woman (1996) Directed by Cheryl Dunye

Dunye’s term for her original genre that combines real-life with recreations and real people with actors is ‘Dunyementary’. The Watermelon Woman falls into this category. The film follows Dunye’s journey in creating a documentary on a 1930s actress known as The Watermelon Woman. On the way she uncovers and explores some of the important contributions African Americans made to cinema while also expressing her perspective as a black, lesbian filmmaker.

Daring to Resist: Three Women Face the Holocaust (1999) Directed by Martha Goell Lubell and Barbara Attie

This documentary, produced by National Geographic, tells the stories of three women who, as teenagers in 3 Nazi-occupied countries, resisted the round-ups of their Jewish communities. They did everything from distributing resistance newspapers to leading underground groups that smuggled Jews across the border.

The Fifth Reaction (2003) Vakonesh Panjom Directed by Tahmineh Milani

Milani’s film aims to empower women to fight for their rights in its examination of a female’s role in a patriarchal society. Main character Fereshteh faces sexism and injustice following the accidental death of her husband. She loses her home and her children but tries to fight back with the help of supportive women.

Chisholm ’72: Unbought and Unbossed (2004) Directed by Shola Lynch

Lynch’s film follows the career of Shirley Chisholm, the first black congresswoman in America who also ran for president in 1972. The documentary chronicles not only Shirley’s story but also the impact she had as she fought for equality and promoted public engagement in politics.

Trudell (2005) Directed by Heather Rae

This documentary tells the story of Native American poet, activist, and leader of the American Indian Movement, John Trudell. Due to the unmitigated erasure Native Americans have faced this film brings much-needed attention to the resistance that has been ongoing on our continent for centuries.

Pray the Devil Back to Hell (2008) Directed by Gini Reticker

Reticker’s documentary shows the power of women joining together in non-violent protest. As civil war ravaged Liberia, Christian and Muslim women gathered separately to organize for peace. Eventually, the groups, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, banded together and successfully resisted.

Last Call at the Oasis (2011) Directed by Jessica Yu

Multiple sources are now reporting that water may become unaffordable within the next five years. This is one big issue that the #NoDAPL water protectors are trying to educate us about (s/o to treaty rights, but that’s another story). Jessica Yu was one of the people trying to warn us all years ago with this documentary on the global water crisis.

A Red Girl’s Reasoning (2012) Directed by Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers

Tailfeathers created this film in response to Canada’s increasing rates of missing and murdered Indigenous women. This is not just a Canadian issue, a study released by the DOJ in May 2016 found that of the 2000 Alaskan and Native American women surveyed 84% had experienced violence. Tailfeather’s film fights back with the story of an ass-kicking Indigenous woman who takes on the attackers of other women.

American Revolutionary: The Evolution of Grace Lee Boggs (2013) Directed by Grace Lee

While filming another project in which filmmaker Grace Lee interviewed other women named Grace Lee from various backgrounds, Lee met Boggs and decided her story warranted a whole documentary of its own. It’s the story of a Chinese-American activist and philosopher who was part of the civil rights and Black Power movements.

Free Angela and All Political Prisoners (2013) Directed by Shola Lynch

Shola returns to the list with the story of another incredible activist, Angela Davis. Angela’s influence is still at work today as she continues to educate packed crowds, including a speech at the Women’s March. Her story isn’t over, but this documentary details some of the astonishing events that contributed to her worldwide recognition today.

Ukraine Is Not a Brothel (2013) Directed by Kitty Green

Green’s documentary focuses on FEMEN, the feminist activist group from Ukraine, who she followed for over a year. The group is known around the world for organizing topless protests in defense of women’s rights which were met with harassment and arrests.

Dangerous Acts Starring the Unstable Elements of Belarus (2013) Directed by Madeleine Sackler

Sackler’s story, created with smuggled footage, describes the level of censorship artists in the country face and chronicles the resistance movement. She follows the members of the Belarus Free Theater, who face imprisonment or worse as they stage underground performances that examine ‘taboo’ topics like sexual orientation and suicide.

Scheherazade’s Diary (2013) Directed by Zeina Daccache

“Scheherazade in Baabda,”is a drama/theater therapy project for female inmates in Lebanon. Daccache documented their 10-month program, leading to a play in front of an audience at the prison. The women, labeled as criminals, share their stories of abuse, trauma, and deprivation. The film reflects the failures of all oppressive societies that lead victims to crime.

Sepideh (2013) Directed by Berit Madsen

At 16, Sepideh is already passionate about astronomy and dreams of floating in space. As a young woman in Iran, her family’s expectations and traditions clash with her goals. Madsen followed Sepideh for two years documenting her struggle, ambition, and major life-changing moments.

A Quiet Inquisition (2014) Directed by Alessandra Zeka and Holen Sabrina Kahn

Even the trailer for this documentary, which follows OBGYN Dr. Carla Cerrato in Nicaragua, is an important message regarding the dangers that regulating women’s bodies impose on us. Stories like these emphasize the NECESSITY of pro-choice legislature to protect the right of women to make their own decisions. With so much negative propaganda surrounding Planned Parenthood and what it means to be pro-choice, these stories are important in educating people about the reality of the situation.

The Supreme Price (2014) Directed by Joanna Lipper

Lipper follows Hafsat Abiola, who became determined to make sure her parents’ pro-democracy message would be heard after her father’s presidential victory was annulled and her mother was assassinated. “If what they were hoping to do is silence the voices of Nigeria’s women who are demanding change, I would make sure that my mother’s voice was not made silent by even one day.”

Portrait of an Indigenous Woman (2015) Directed by Caroline Monnet

Ten women try to define what it means to be an Indigenous woman. In a March 2016 interview, Monnet said, “I think, as filmmakers, that’s our power — to make the stories that we want to tell and that we feel important to tell.” I wholeheartedly agree. As audiences, our power is in seeking perspectives that society has attempted again and again to drown out.

13th (2016) Directed by Ava DuVernay

DuVernay’s documentary gained a lot of attention this year for answering the question: did the 13th amendment really end slavery? Ava presents the strong argument, supported by what she described in an NPR interview as “nuanced knowledge”, that slavery continues today under the guise of mass incarceration. This is an immediate must-watch if you haven’t already.

We Can’t Make the Same Mistake Twice (2016) Directed by Alanis Obomsawin

Obomsawin is known for her documentaries on the Canadian government’s neglect of First Nations communities. Her latest follows the complaint filed by activist groups led by Cindy Blackstock which claimed that the government was discriminating against First Nations communities via inadequate funding of services for Indigenous children.

This is by no means an extensive list. I encourage everyone to actively seek out films and stories about issues that interest you. There are PLENTY. As intersectional feminists, we must also be committed to educating ourselves and others about the problems that don’t directly affect us. People all over the world are trying to get out important messages through film. Keep in mind the value of supporting their cause either by sharing/promoting, contributing financially or even seeking a cast or crew role. And feel free to add to the list in the comments!

[cogcniamhmitchellhnd1a]

Who Am I?

CLAUDE CAHUN

Claude Cahun – (25thOctober 1894 – 8thDecember 1954)

Cahun was a famous Jewish-French surrealist photographer, sculptor and writer. Born in France, she lived the majority of her life in Jersey, UK with her step sister and partner. Both females were also known as Lucy Schwob and Suzanne Malherbe and were famous for both adopting their preferred gender-neutral pseudonyms during early adulthood. Throughout her photographic and artistic career, it was known that she left a lot of her work ‘abandoned’ however, the process behind this meant that every piece would add up to a greater final exhibit (still unfinished though). Cahun used to always mention about her work and herself personally that the reason behind the majority of her work not being finished is due to the fact that as an artist, she no longer has any answers to questions regarding herself and her work and so, makes that statement in her work. Her work featured and explored gender identity and the subconscious mind. The artists self-portraits look neither feminine or masculine which links to the photographer’s main photographic theme. The image shown above takes on that mystery persona which links in with Cahun’s work and makes the reader want to figure out who is that and what style it is that they’re undertaking.

FRANCESCA WOODMAN

Francesca Stern Woodman (April 3, 1958 – January 19, 1981)

Woodman was an American photographer best known for her black and white pictures featuring either herself or female models. Many of her photographs show women, naked or clothed, blurred (due to movement and long exposure times), merging with their surroundings, or whose faces are obscured. Her work continues to be the subject of much critical acclaim and attention, years after she died by suicide at the age of 22, in 1981. What I liked most about the image on the right-hand side was the motion in it. It feels as if though she is trying to show her problems and the “dark” inside her to the public. The distortion within the image is acting as if there is another person inside Woodman that is trying to escape from within and be seen by others. What I take from this is that Woodman may have produced this image during her dark time in her life and was her possible cry for help and attention which she was struggling to gain from everyone around her. The use of black and white within the photo I feel, compliments it more and creates a strong dark mood within the image, possibly wanting the reader to want to know more about the story behind the photo and woodman itself. To create this image, Woodman would have needed to use a slow shutter speed and a timer in order to create this image. The only light source coming from within the window which would have meant that it could have possibly taken quite a few attempts with many possible retakes as well.

VIVIAN MAIER

Vivian Dorothy Maier was born on February 1st, 1926 in New York. She was a well-known American street photographerand mostly based her images on architecture and people all around the world and in the US. Before Maier became a photographer, she worked for about forty years as a nanny, mostly in Chicago's North Shore, pursuing photography during her spare time. During her photographic career, many of her images were unknown and unpublished with many of her negatives not being printed. Just before her death, a series of her negatives were found along with a few more boxes which contained a vast number of images inside of them, they were then published in the year 2008 with very little responses. After her death the year after, her images were shared on the social media site, Flickr, where her work went viral. Since this date her work has been exhibited all around the world in various exhibitions. Vivian’s career has also been subject to a 2013 film called “Finding Vivian Maier” which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival. During her early stages of life, Maier was brought up in France and the US due to her parent’s moving around. At the age of 4, Maier and her mum moved to the Bronx with professional photographer, Jeanne Bertrand. The use of a slow shutter speed and a possible double exposure within this image makes it more interesting. You can see that it is probably the start of her photographic career or, that it may be part of her trying out new techniques and incorporating herself within that.

TRISH MORRISSEY

Born in Dublin in 1967, Morrissey now lives in the UK with her family. Her photography work is mostly based on family life with the majority of her images featuring herself becoming part of a stranger’s family. Her idea behind this theme was to try and recreate the common and typical family portraits seen all around the world with members standing in front of iconic monuments or even your normal beach front photo. Her work is exhibited widely throughout the world with most of her images exhibited in Sweden, Finland, UK, and in Florence, Italy. What is quite interesting about Morrissey’s work is the colours she uses within and in hope for entertainment within her images. Despite not showing any expression on her face, the colours used within her work appear as though a child’s painting. Her work is mostly based upon family images and life, what I am taking from this image is that she is also trying to portray that onto herself even if she is the only subject within that image. What I also think she is trying to do within this image is link her more family themes within this image. For example, the messy hair could be due to the lack of time she has to get ready or, this is the aftermath of play time with toddlers.

CINDY SHERMAN

Cynthia Sherman is a well-known American photographer and film director and is best known for her chameleon like portraits. Sherman also completed a series of black and white photographs which were meant to subvert the stereotypes of women in media. Towards the 1980’s, she started to use colour film and large prints in her work and moved her focus towards facial expression and lighting. Sherman was born in January 1954 in New Jersey, where after her birth, her parents moved away to separate states for work. In 1972, Sherman started her career off in Buffalo State College where she began painting. This is where she was influenced heavily with her photographic career as she began exploring new characters and ideas. With the lack of progress during her painting career, she realised halfway through that she was able to become more flexible and creative with photography. Sherman works in a series, typically photographing herself in a range of costumes and makeup. To create her images, Sherman would take photos of herself in her studio, taking up multiple roles as actor, author, director, makeup artist and model. This photo is showing a softer side to the photographer with it coming across more delicate to the viewer. This photo would’ve been used in order to create a calm, delicate persona about women and taking a whole different direction in what she is usually used to taking photographs of. The chameleon like persona is not seen within this photograph so it could be Sherman trying to step outside a comfort zone and trying out a new different area to pursue.

[ferdinandcham]

Justice League Review (Spoilers)

Disclaimer: I think Ben Affleck is a shitty actor and is up there on the stale list with Tom Cruise. Fight me.

DC has been my favorite since I was a little girl. I grew up reading the comics and loving the cartoons. Yadda yadda yadda. (Spoilers ahead, turn back now.)

So after the BEAUTY that was Wonder Woman, I was far more pumped for Justice League hoping that this would be a redemption arc for the DCEU.

Then came Jason and Ezra, and I started getting my hopes up even more. Could Gal, Jason, and Ezra save the DCEU from Ben Affleck? Could it ever truly recover from Green Lantern?

Then. Enter Joss Whedon. That’s when the true tragic downfall began. But I still held out hope and went to watch this movie. Because I had to support Gal and Jason.

I’ll start with saying something good and then ending with the bad. To create some balance because there ARE enjoyable parts of the movie.

• Gal Gadot was wonderful as usual. Patty wasn’t there to truly make her shine as she did in Wonder Woman, but she did her best as one of the only female characters in the entire movie after Joss mangled it. She was strong and was clearly acknowledged as the strongest one on the team. She wasn’t shy about using her clear advantage over the men to keep them in place either. (I wish she’d done more damage when she shoved Ben Affleck’s shitty Batman after his crass remarks.) Also Patty was probably foaming at the mouth at every ass and cleavage shot that the male directors plastered throughout the movie. Because I was furious. They scrapped an entire movie about Wonder Woman’s empowerment to create fake chemistry between Diana and Ben-Bruce and give nasty little boys their sexy scenes.

•Ezra Miller was a gem. He was the humor and it was very well timed. He played the socially awkward fanboy perfectly and he channeled how any normal person would react being put in a situation where he had to be the hero. He was witty and energetic and everything I love about the Flash. My only regret is that for some reason they never can capture how truly intelligent and fast Barry Allen is. It’s not just running or quick reflexes. His brain works at that same speed as well and they never really bring that to the plate with his live action portrayals.

•Jason Momoa. HOW ARE YOU DOIN. He’s such a versatile actor. He truly is. He plays snark well. He plays seriousness well. He plays lovers well. He’s just a magnificent man, both in personality, skill, and physique. He did well with what scenes he actually was allowed to keep and I enjoyed the parallel of him sitting on Diana’s rope and admitting he was afraid he was going to die as when Steve Trevor did it. I was really disappointed that we got almost no actual backstory for him or Cyborg.

•STEVE TREVOR IS GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN. I immensely enjoyed that Steve is still a large factor in Diana’s life. He was truly the love of her life and decades later, his influence over her is still strong.

I did NOT appreciate Ben Affleck’s Batman using Steve as a verbal slap against Diana every chance he got. To me, it wasn’t even a good plot point and if you wanted to use it as a motivator to push Diana into a leadership role, it should have been handled better. Frankly, anytime Ben-Bruce said something about Steve and taunted Diana with it, it seemed to come more from jealousy that Diana loved Steve and that there was no room for Bruce rather than from an attempt to motivate her into a leadership role. Steve Trevor did not die for Joss and Ben to use him as a sexist tool to manipulate and hurt Diana and create fake chemistry between her and Ben-Bruce.

(Before little fanboys come spouting shit about WonderBat, I’ve always been a Steve Trevor fan and the Wonder Woman movie solidified that. Plus MY Batman is far more respectful of others and is a GOOD person. He would never be that cruel and crass towards someone in pain. MY Batman is the one who got Harley Quinn a dress after she had a bad day. MY Batman adopted a billion children and was a good father. MY Batman wasn’t a dickfuck. Ben Affleck’s asshole, sexist, jealous portrayal is #notmybatman)

•Mera was gorgeous and badass. She faced off with Steppenwolf with no fear. But we got, like, MAYBE three minutes of screen time for her??? I want to write more about her but they didn’t even give me enough to go on. That was extremely disappointing. This was a heavily male driven movie. Joss cut most of Mera’s scenes, completely disregarded Iris West and cut her completely out of the movie, and cut half of Lois Lane’s scenes. So out of ten (Batman, Superman, Flash, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf, Aquaman, Martha Kent, Lois Lane, Alfred) significant characters, only three (Martha, Lois, and Diana) were women and only one (Diana) had significant screen time.

•I reallllly want more Atlantis. Like just give me an Aquaman movie soon please.

•I’m not even a major Superman fan, but Lois and Clark are too cute to be legal and Zack Snyder is clearly their biggest fangirl. I really enjoyed that Lois Lane is considered a big gun and that she’s a force to be reckoned with. BUT WHY WOULD YOU CUT OUT THE RING SCENE. WHY JOSS. YOU FUCKHEAD. AND WAS CGI SHAVED FACE NECESSARY??!?!?

•Cyborg did not get enough development. He was finally portrayed as a funny guy towards the end, but all we got was angst and daddy issues. I wanted more. He is a large character that needed more development than what he got. Little disappointed that due to Iris being cut, Cyborg (POC) and Flash (Jewish) were the only established non-white people in the movie.

•Cyborg and Flash’s friendship was super adorable and I need more. I’m glad they established these two as the outcasts and the younger friends. So was the friendship between these two and Diana. So pure. So wholesome. Some of Diana’s best scenes were with these two and being a gentle and motherly-figure to them. It really showcased that Wonder Woman is a truly rounded wholesome character who is able to be the compassionate friend or the kickass warrior.

•Wally vs. Clark in every moment was great. 10/10 a great addition to the movie. Just wholesome. Whether it be a speed contest or a who can rescue more civilians contest. Pure. Wholesome. Lovely.

•Steppenwolf was stale. Like almost as stale as Ben-Bruce. Stale like old white bread. Just stale. There had to have been other villains to make the big bad. I don’t know. Just couldn’t really enjoy the lack of characterization.

•I enjoyed the hints about the Lantern Corps. Hopefully they can redeem themselves from the Green Lantern movie. That was just bad. I hope that the ring that flew back into space is Hal Jordan. Or better yet, John Stewart. Either way I’ll be happy though. Hal and Barry are super adorable together as besties.

•I really love Alfred. Alfred to me is what kept Bruce from being what Ben is portraying him as. But this Alfred? Not so much. Really disappointed that this Alfred is only concerned with trying to get Ben-Bruce’s dick inside Diana. Not impressed. Where is Michael Caine when you need him?

•I DESPISE Jesse whatshisname as Lex Luthor, but I’m very ready for the Legion of Doom. Although Deathstroke wasn’t really apart of it. But whatever. I’m excited to see Cheetah and Poison Ivy. Not so pumped for Gorilla Grodd but I’ll live. Maybe they won’t add him.

•I would really like to see more variety in gender and in color in the next movies. Iris needs to be back. They need more character development for the others. We’ve seen Batman vs. Superman and Man is Steel, and although I LOVE her, we’ve seen Wonder Woman. Can we get more focus on the newer characters to round them out? Or at least give them their own stand alone films sooner rather than later, and tie them to references from Justice League so it feels a bit more put together and less patchy.

•Also, bah Joss Whedon from any further involvement with any franchise that gives him the chance to fuck up female characters? He butchered Black Widow to give Hulk more characterization. And now he’s attempting to do so in this franchise. Enough is enough.

Hopefully the next DCEU movie improves on Justice League.

[nofomoartworld]

Hyperallergic: A Post-Punk ’80s Sci-Fi Film Explores NYC’s Nightlife

Still from Liquid Sky (1982), directed by Slava Tsukerman (image courtesy Photofest)

On May 27 and 28, filmgoers will have their final opportunity to enjoy a precious artifact of New York City’s post-punk culture: The only surviving 35mm print of Slava Tsukerman’s 1982 cult film Liquid Sky will have two public screenings at Quad Cinema before it is permanently retired. In recent years, this deteriorating print from Tsukerman’s private collection was the only legal means of seeing the film, which has yet to receive a DVD, Blu-ray, or streaming release; a date for a planned digital release also has yet to be announced.

Despite its limited availability, Liquid Sky’s impact on contemporary popular culture has been vast. The colorful costumes and makeup are said to have influenced the personas of pop stars like Lady Gaga and Sia. In a recent phone conversation, Tsukerman — who will be present for a post-show Q&A at the screenings with star and co-writer Anne Carlisle — explained that the film’s unique look grew from the era’s fashion and then veered in a more futuristic direction. “We really tried to catch the style of the time, but I deeply believe that you cannot just take something from reality. It should be transformed into art,” he said.

A plot description alone hardly conveys the sublime degree to which Tsukerman and crew transcend reality in this film. But it stars Connecticut-born fashion model Margaret (Carlisle), who lives in a Manhattan penthouse with her girlfriend, performance artist and heroin dealer Adrian (Paula E Sheppard). Early in the film, a small flying saucer perches on the roof of their apartment, attracted to Adrian’s stash. But the aliens soon discover a more potent means of harvesting the dopamine they need to survive: the human orgasm. Margaret realizes that something is dissolving and absorbing her sexual partners at the moment of climax. She quickly weaponizes this discovery in her struggles with the assorted creeps and predators she meets in the fashion world, including rival model Jimmy (Carlisle in drag). With Liquid Sky, Tsukerman consciously constructed a cult film that offers a unique perspective on the early 1970s/late ’80s Downtown New York City arts community that uses the fantastic to stand apart from more traditional films about the scene, which typically focus on some combination of Basquiat, Haring, and Schnabel.

The film’s exploration of New York culture and nightlife was far removed from Tsukerman’s early life in Moscow. He wanted to make films from a young age, but his Jewish heritage kept him from being selected for the country’s one film school, which only accepted 15 students per year. The indefatigable film fan instead pursued his career of choice through an alternate route: enrolling in engineering school to mimic the path of his idol, pioneering Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein. His technical background led to a career directing science documentaries, though his approach indicated a preference for circumventing stylistic norms that would come to fruition in Liquid Sky.

“Instead of making real documentaries, a couple of my friends and I created a new genre, a mix of everything: fiction, documentary, animation, special effects,” he said, attributing this innovation to the difficulty of conveying abstract concepts like quantum physics.

These tendencies are fully apparent in Liquid Sky, where mixed media are employed to portray unreal situations. When Margaret and Adrian’s alien visitors arrive, the screen fills with multicolored, kaleidoscopic animation. A sphere shooting lightning-like squiggles sits at the center of the tableau. While this abstract imagery is used throughout to represent the aliens, documentary techniques are crucial to the narrative; fashion shows in small dark rooms are framed like tribal rituals captured by an ethnographer, and performance art is recorded at a fixed, objective distance. Tsukerman uses a patchwork of tools from different genres, heightening the viewer’s sensation that he or she is watching a singular cinematic work.

The most noteworthy technical aspect in a film bursting with noteworthy technical aspects is the atonal synthesizer soundtrack that ploddingly propels the action from scene to scene. Composed by Tsukerman in collaboration with Brenda Hutchinson and Clive Smith, the consistent, mechanical music of the opening, coupled with several slow, steady zooms, offers the feeling that the film is gradually progressing toward a goal or a reveal, but its discordant melody creates a sense of unease regarding the destination. Despite the score’s haphazard appearance, its effect is very calculated.

“I take music in films very seriously,” Tsukerman said. “In most cases, I know what music is going to be in the film very early, even during writing the script or before shooting. In the case of Liquid Sky, I wanted a kind of circus music, but electronic because it was about aliens. I wanted an electronic circus, very primitive.”

As the film’s standout actor, Sheppard builds on this sonic tapestry with her art, which fuses electronic music and poetry. Her performance of the song “Me and My Rhythm Box” — chanting nonsense stanzas like “My rhythm box is sweet / Never / Forgets / A beat” over digital percussion — makes her the nexus of insanity in this bizarre world. The actor’s work teeters on the border between meaningfulness and incomprehensibility, seeming like a parody of the stereotypical, unhinged performance artist. However, there is an authenticity in Sheppard’s feralness that attracted Tsukerman.

“[Adrian is] a very typical character as part of the punk and post-punk culture,” he recalled. In auditions, “a lot of very good actresses were mimicking punk, but I couldn’t believe them. They were hypothetical. Not real. I knew that Paula, who didn’t look like a punk with her long hair, has a very strong acting quality and projection. That was the main thing which made the character”

While excited to share anecdotes from the past, Tsukerman is currently focused on Liquid Sky’s legacy and future. As the 35mm print makes the transition to digital, he is finishing a documentary about the film’s production, complete with video recordings of rehearsals. A sequel is also on the way, once again written in conjunction with Carlisle. Although the Quad Cinema screenings close one door in the life of Liquid Sky, Tsukerman’s loving custodianship of his masterpiece will open several more, leading many new cinephiles to discover this cult time capsule in the years to come.

Liquid Sky screens at Quad Cinema (34 West 13th Street, Manhattan) on May 27 and 28, followed by Q&A with director/co-writer Slava Tsukerman and actress/co-writer Anne Carlisle. The events are part of Quad’s series Immigrant Songs, which features films that capture the immigrant experience in America.

The post A Post-Punk ’80s Sci-Fi Film Explores NYC’s Nightlife appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2rVHNXp via IFTTT

[smokescreenproductions-blog]

Mengele Research Trip to Krakow, Poland

From the very beginning, as an actor I knew this was going to be a significant project to be a part of; working on a script that carries not only the weight of the past and history, but also the weight of the present, of what is being repeated, paths being re-tread in the now, is a challenging feat for a young actor. Or any actor. When a story such as this, of Josef Mengele, of his escape from Nazi Germany, of his experiments in the name of Medical Science and his faith in Eugenics, I knew the rehearsal and research process was going to challenge us as a cast on an emotional as well as cerebral plain. How does one not grimace or judge such a man as Josef Mengele? How does one not transfer their own morality onto a man that arguably does not have one? These were the questions I was beginning to ask myself when our production team and cast decided to make the journey to Krakow, specifically Auschwitz-Birkenau, to the very ramp and ground that Mengele worked and walked upon.

Along with our production team, simply walking the streets of Krakow was a humbling experience; meandering through the same side streets and squares that Mengele and the SS frequented during the war. It was very much about absorbing the tension that eerily still lingers in Krakow despite its sublime beauty of horse drawn carriages, peach evening skies and cafes lining the main square, cafes that were open for business to Nazi officials and commandments during World War Two.

Back on the street and Krakow’s rich air, heavy with Klezmer and the sound of strings, the Jewish Quarter at night time was an opportunity to source and search for the music we needed to open Act Two. Although the Argentine Tango between Josef and Azrael was agreed upon, the team wanted to immerse itself in an authentic Polish Ballroom/Dance Hall; not a performed Dance Hall for the tourists, but with all the performative still there in its dancers and music.

Coming across Klub Kabaret down a hidden back water of Krakowska within the Kazimierz Jewish Quarter, we found what we were looking for. Locals had gathered for Midnight Tango in the basement of the club. A time capsule of 1930’s Krakow, it was perfect. Watching the couples from above, you begin seeing the significance of what a dance within a play can do to the audience and narrative overall. Why does it come at this point in the play? Who leads? Who follows? What’s been discussed before the dance? What are the feelings of the characters? What do they want from each other? Who is she to him, and him to her? Like the dances in Ibsen and Chekhov, the Argentine Tango in ‘Mengele’ will certainly carry a subtext as we experiment with tempo, tone, and these factors in the rehearsal room.

Oskar Schindler’s Factory

The external of the factory remains untouched, like most of Krakow, and this white building on Lipowa, proved exceptional in resource material about Jewish life in pre-Nazi Krakow and during the liquidation of the ghetto in 1943.

As a testament to the danger Oskar Schindler put himself in, it is harrowing to think how this individual, this one man made the decision to save Jewish lives when placed in a position of power within the Nazi state. He realised he had the choice and he took it. I began making connections between him and Josef Mengele; these were two men, two individuals who were in strong positions of power and influence, both held the power of life in their hands, and it proves fascinating to look at how both utilised that power. One particular section of the play that stands out to me whilst going through this museum was : -

MENGELE   We were men of action.

AZRA      I can see that. This is not always easy … It takes a strong man to take such decisions.

MENGELE   Yes. Someone had to be strong. Someone had to do the work, to take action.

These men were both indeed men of action. Both took action. Both members of the Nazi Party, in the Krakow area, perhaps even circulating similar social circles. And that idea of choice, of being a strong man in difficult times, that someone had to step forward ‘to do the work’ makes you think how these two men who had extremely similar circumstances and backgrounds, could develop such opposing moral duties in battle of one another.

 Jewish Ghetto and Wall

The stories of the past and the shadows of the Jewish Ghetto still permeates through the city. Commuters, shop venders and builders live and work in the Kazimierz, and you do wonder how the people of Krakow keep the memories of the past firmly in the past. Many who returned to the city after 1944, returned not to a home, but to a mausoleum. Many could no longer call it home.

The streets that were their playgrounds, the houses that were their homes; all now monuments. Artefactual in silent splendour.

When you approach a section of the old Jewish Ghetto Wall; we walked the stretch on Lakowska Street, the unsettling shapes the wall makes on the sky line look like the heads of grave stones. Perfect circular arches one after another. Unlike the historical areas of London or Paris, one can very easily trace the buildings behind the wall. They didn’t seem to have even been repainted since the Ghetto. That same, cheap mars black ever so slightly peeling back rusted windows that could speak without words. As a generally stoic character with a strong physical presence on stage, I found these buildings in the Ghetto particularly significant in the development of my character Azra and how she navigates Mengele towards the truth.

Auschwitz-Birkenau 

One cannot attempt to grasp the scale of what happened here. Auschwitz-Birkenau is more than a physical place now; it is a place in the human conscious. And it still very much exists in the memories of many. So, when something like this transcends into an actual place you step onto, with walls you can touch, and steps you can climb, it shatters you with the silence of its place in reality. It wasn't a nightmare. It was real.

Tim and I both walked the path of Mengele’s victims at Birkenau and the responsibility we have as actors to the piece became overwhelming. For Tim, he could walk through the exact process geographically of Mengele’s selections. From track, to cart, to gate, to unloading, and then categorisation by gender and age. And then of course the exact footsteps he made when selecting his patients at The Ramp. This was his work. For me, as the actor, the attack on the senses was inescapable. But all the more necessary for when we were to work on Act Three in the rehearsal room.

It’s incredibly important for Tim and I as a cast to be able to experience the weight of these places as actors that are taking on such sensitive material. In doing so, with the Ghetto, Kazimierz and Auschwitz-Birkenau, we are gaining access to the geography of Josef Mengele’s life and work. It’s about capturing and harnessing the tangible atmosphere we have experienced in Krakow and translate that into the stage play in the UK.

 As rehearsals continue after Krakow, we're continuing to find further levels and dimensions with in the text. For me, the relationship between Josef and this woman goes through many stages within a very condensed period on stage. Their exchanges throughout the piece become faster as repetition and finishing one another's sentences becomes part of the rhythm of Tim and Phil's writing. Almost like they are speaking as one person. A universal voice. And with this universality of two characters on stage, I couldn't help thinking of how it relates to the imagery of the twins Mengele was so obsessed by in his experiments. Are the two characters twins? Are they indeed speaking as one? Are they themselves a part of some greater experiment bigger than Mengele could ever imagine? These are all ideas and questions that an actor goes through with a text very much open to interpretation in who or what these people are in the play. 

  Reading List of the Team whilst in Krakow: -

I was Doctor Mengele's Assistant by Miklos Nyiszli

Auschwitz: The Nazis & The Final Solution by Laurence Rees

If Not Now, When? By Primo Levi

On Photography by Susan Sontag

Roman by Polanski by Roman Polanski

Right to Live by Philip Wharam