#kind of anti raoul

[kittenfangirl20]

I think the main reason why I prefer The Phantom of the Opera musical over The Phantom of the Opera novel is the fact that Christine Daaé is the protagonist of the musical while Raoul is the protagonist of the novel. Christine is the character whose choices have the biggest impact on the story and you get more interactions between her and Erik in the musical. You see her being conflicted between Raoul who feels like the safer choice to her and represents her childhood and Erik who while dangerous, you can tell Christine in the musical was attracted to. While in the novel I had to be subjected to Raoul whining about why Christine didn’t fall into his arms when they met up again in the beginning and Raoul even slut shames Christine which made me pissed off at him for the rest of the book.

[marybeatriceofmodena]

I'm curious, do ppl hate Love Never Dies because they think Eristine is problematic and it's made canon in it, or is it due to something else? I havent watched it yet or anything but i like the vibes, lol

Heh... Love Never Dies has always been controversial at the very least? It came out at a time where Erik/Christine was still the most popular ship in the phandom - it still is, by the way. That didn't change despite a clear shift in fandom and ""problematic content"" around 2013, so a good 3 years after the musical came out. If anything, Raoul/Christine shippers have been a minority for most of the phandom's history, and both sides of the debate at some point more or less decided to agree to disagree (I mean, the homophobic slurs Raoul would get at times were starting to REALLY be in poor taste), except on the point that without the love triangle, there wouldn't be much of a story, and there are various ways of interpreting said love triangle. So, quite frankly, I don't understand why some people on either side are trying to restart discourse in the POTO fandom but I digress. And look, if you see people in the tags saying that Erik/Christine is problematic, they're probably new, and not really representative of the phandom at large. Anything having to do with Sierra Boggess is more controversial.

I really don't think the controversy stems from it making Erik and Christine bang and have a love child - I know there are some people who are against the idea of any kind of sequel, in fanfic form or otherwise, for a variety of reasons, but most of them were being responsible adults about it and didn't actively seek fanfic. As I mentioned before, a lot of folks were Erik/Christine shippers and thought that Christine was more into the Phantom than into Raoul, that's nothing new. But a lot of them also had issues with how LND dealt with it, for several reasons. It didn't come from an "anti" sentiment, it was very much them having issues with the material that was presented to them.

Raphael/phantoonsoftheopera (who is a long time fan of POTO) goes into more detail here and I think he sums up a lot of phans' thoughts back in 2010 when LND came out (whether they shipped the Phantom and Christine or not), and I think @musicalhell is another one who was also around at the time (feel free to pop in, and hope I'm not bothering you with the tag).

As for the rest, I wish I could defend ALW's choices here in the same way I'd defend Lana Wachowski for Matrix Resurrections - i.e. you're allowed to not like it but this is this creator's baby and they're allowed to do whatever they want with it, so let's all respect art for the sake of art here. But LND is very much a vanity project, as ALW has proven multiple times, that is mean-spirited to its core in various ways. For my fellow SW fans, it's the TROS to POTO'S TLJ. The cast and crew were treated in a really shitty way back in the original London production days, same with critics of the show, and there was even a case where a journalist and long time phan who provided a critical review of LND was demeaned in an article as some sort of sad housewife who was obsessed with POTO. Mind you, ALW has tried to make LND work FOR YEARS, with various productions and tours opening here and there, but it always underperforms. And mind you, the Eristine crowd is still hanging around, and POTO is doing extremely well whereever it goes to this day. If the Eristine content was good, the crowds would follow, "problématique" posts and tweets or not. They aren't there.

[roadtophantom]

Let your S(e)oul take you where you long to be (III) - Cho Seung-woo

(part three of my neverending travelogue, I thought I'll just write one but this already got long)

I think it didn't quite hit me that I was seeing Phantom even when I went in the theatre, likely because of travel adrenaline? I was still a bit dazed coming in and I didn't quite settle until the show started. But also it was so warm and tight that it's hard to get a semblance of personal space.

But it didn't take long because Charlotte Theatre is small and it kinda really wraps itself around the stage. At least that's how I felt.

Because when the overture started and the sparks came off, I was sucked right in.

But listen. Hearing the organ played in person and watching the chandelier make its steady ascent, coming from a lockdown of 3 or so years after fighting tooth and nail to be on that seat, were enough to reduce me to actual tears.

I was sobbing behind my face mask — a souvenir from the pandemic that is sadly here to stay— as reality finally hit me that I managed to live to see another Phantom show when such a possibility didn't exist then, and it's as real as the chandelier looming large before my very eyes.

Second was seeing the proscenium in its fullest glory. Unfortunately, 2delier and the stripped down World Tour revival stage cannot possibly hold a candle to the magnificence of a complete replica set. I haven't seen this setup since 10 years ago in Singapore (not counting HK coz that was an arena and it's a bit different).

I'm reviewing both performances at once because I saw them in 24 hours and it will help me make (healthy) comparisons.

But I think I want to write about the Korean production as a whole first. I've read that it took a while for the local production to mount another POTO KR because of the scale and the demands of the show and the producers want to get everything perfect.

And I think they really did, or at least one that approaches sheer excellence in acting, singing, dancing, all that.

The ballerinas are in step with each other, the cast harmonizes so beautifully even in Prima Donna which tends to go messy and overwhelming...As a full company they are undefeatable.

And I've seen some of the most heartrending performances and heard the most exquisite voices in these two shows.

During my week in Seoul, I managed to catch a movie on cable TV led by Cho Seung-woo called Inside Men and he played this prosecutor who is smart, ambitious, and hellbent for justice. He was all suits, yanked neckties, and cigarettes. A cool hero you wanna root for. And in the first movie I've seen of him (The Classic), he plays a young Romeo with such pure ideals on love and friendship, again a good guy you can't help but love and feel hurt for.

The Phantoms - Cho Seung-woo

Those are barely a scratch on the surface of the veteran actor's stellar filmography and theatre work. His versatility is undisputed, and he's played everything from Hedwig to Sweeney Todd until he finally took on the challenge as the Phantom, which is still so mindblowing to me.

There was no hint of swagger, coolness, or goodness in Cho Seung-woo's Phantom. He is basically the anti-cute Phantom. This is the sewer rat, the stone gargoyle on the roof, the cantankerous old neighbor you don't wanna deal with. He made that especially clear from the mirror scene, as he openly sneered at Raoul's attempts at Christine.

The Phantoms I've seen would try to play up being angel, ghost or even just try to present themselves as an educated gentleman forced under very unfortunate circumstances, but Cho Seung-woo's Phantom is well frankly, truly what you'd expect of a creature living in an underground lake. He isn't shy or afraid to be menacing because that's...what's on the script anyway, right?

With one caveat, he can't bear to be ugly in front of Christine who is his weakness from the very beginning.

His Music of the Night gives a sneak peek of the kind of desolation and yearning he feels for her. He also peppers his performances throughout with whispers of "Christine" (even after MOTN) which I realized is his desperate plea of help.

Cho Phantom loses his temper quite easily, he's delighted like Rumpelstiltskin dancing around the fire when he plays tricks at Carlotta, unafraid to play up his monster persona to get his way. But this evil facade falls in front of Christine. Of course he tries to put up that mean act, but eventually he is just this awkward teenage boy with a first-ever crush. He is so hyperaware of his appearance in front of her. He practically worships her.

So imagine in PONR, he groans at Christine's advances and in AIAOY reprise he is almost on his knees begging her to please take pity and accept him.

In Final Lair, he recoils after Christine kisses him in a 'Why would you do that to yourself? Why touch a cursed creature like me with your perfect being? Please don't corrupt yourself' way. And when she goes back to return the ring, he really tried to wipe his hands on his pants, fix himself because he had to at least try to be less horrible as he already is in front of his idol.

As a singer, CSW can carry the notes, but he is not the best singer, not in front of actual tenors in the cast.

Yet his nuanced acting, the level of sensitivity and hyper-awareness he has, the kind of vulnerability he exposes to Christine at Final Lair is one of a kind. You can see he dug into the psychology of the character, imagined how it was like living miserably like him and how it's like to lose everything when he lets Christine, his only source of light and happiness, go.

You feel a lot of things when he's on stage, I truly felt so sorry for him, because his Phantom was such that the world truly let him down. So many realizations you'll see of his character. I think his was the most humanistic rendition of the role I've seen so far. It's a solid performance, and I understand he likes to change the details up every show, no wonder his shows sell out so fast.

[mariacallous]

In August 1958, Charles de Gaulle, who had just returned to power in France, set off on a tour of his country’s sub-Saharan African colonies. His purpose was to present them with a plan to join France in a new kind of “community.” Paris would continue to control what it called “state services,” which included defense, monetary matters, customs, as well as media and communications. A new quasi-limited autonomy, meanwhile, would more or less allow African countries to manage their domestic affairs and to carry the costs, once largely borne, by France of doing so.

De Gaulle presented the novel scheme under a veneer of magnanimity. Via a planned referendum, its African possessions would be given the liberty to accept or reject his community. This offer did not come without a warning though. There would be no debate, only an up or down vote, and any colony that rejected the proposition would face secession from France “with all its consequences.”

It was not long before the world learned what this meant in practice. When de Gaulle visited Guinea the following month, that colony’s leader, Ahmed Sékou Touré, spoke defiantly to a crowd as the French statesman looked on. “We do not and never shall renounce our legitimate right to independence,” he said. This angered De Gaulle, who canceled a planned dinner with Touré that night and disinvited him to fly together on his presidential plane to nearby Senegal the next day. Yet these were but the merest hints of the consequences to come.

After de Gaulle had returned home to Paris, he ordered the immediate withdrawal of the thousands of the French civil servants who had made the colony’s bureaucracy run and staffed its clinics and schools. And before they flew home, many of the French workers engaged in an orgy of petty destructiveness, smashing furniture, trashing official records, breaking equipment, and even shattering lightbulbs.

What happened back then in Guinea is one of most famous episodes in an inglorious history of French colonial rule and domination over large parts of West and Central Africa, but it is only a single chapter in a very long story. Guinea is a better place than most to begin a discussion of this topic because in the 1880s and 1890s, the era of rapid French imperial expansion in the region, it was the site of a fierce campaign by Paris to subdue local political rulers, seize control over gold and other natural resources, and extend France’s authority over new territories.

The most famous of these leaders was a man named Samory Touré, who ruled over a polity called the Wassoulou Empire. Its core was in the Guinea highlands, and to France’s great frustration, it sometimes fielded armies numbering as many as 35,000 soldiers. When his empire was finally subdued just before the close of the century, Touré was exiled to an island in Gabon, a faraway equatorial colony (now country), where he died.

France is of course not the only European country to have ruled over Africans, but its history is unique for its persistence, its geographic spread, and its adaptability. A struggle for independence in Algeria, then a large North African French settler colony, brought down France’s Fourth Republic and threatened a civil war in the heart of Europe in 1958, the same year as de Gaulle’s sub-Saharan tour. That is because of the fantastical claim by the rebellious French general, Raoul Salan, that Algeria was actually a physical part, or geographical extension of France. “The Mediterranean traverses France the way the Seine traverses Paris,” Salan claimed.

In the wake of events in Guinea and Algeria, when other Black African figures began to push for more autonomy than de Gaulle had envisioned, or worse, for outright independence, bad things tended to happen to them. A little remembered anti-colonialist figure from Cameroon named Félix-Roland Moumié, for example, was assassinated by French agents whose actions anticipated the dark methods of Vladimir Putin. They poisoned him with radioactive thallium in Geneva in 1960.

More than 60 years later, there is a remarkable uprising against French influence underway in the Sahel, one of the African regions where French domination has been most thorough over the decades. One after another, the leaders of three states in this semi-arid region—Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali—have spoken out against French sway in West Africa and moved to reduce or eliminate the presence of French soldiers, corporations, and diplomats in their countries. In doing so, they have blamed Paris for a host of problems, ranging from a long-running but ineffective and often disruptive French-led campaign to contain the spread of Islamic insurgencies in the Sahel, to interference in their domestic politics, to profiteering from starkly unequal economic ties.

In stiff rebuffs of France, these three landlocked countries, which rank among the poorest in the world, have sometimes welcomed a larger role for Russia, both in helping bolster their internal security and in the extraction of mineral wealth like the gold and uranium in their soils. And with Russia (as with France for so long) these two things often go together.

They have also hinted at ending cooperation with France on controlling the northward flow of African migration across the Sahara toward Europe. And they have been discussing exiting a long-standing monetary union and currency, the CFA franc, which was created by France prior to independence mostly as a way of sustaining French exports in the region. African critics of the CFA franc have long said that it perpetuates French domination, in part through its historic requirement that member countries of the union deposit their foreign reserves with the French treasury. The three states are even discussing establishing a new Sahelian currency to replace the CFA.

The military president of Niger, Abdourahmane Tchiani, has called for France to pay damages to longtime African client states like his for years of what he has likened to looting. In Burkina Faso, next door, another military leader, Ibrahim Traoré, has vowed never to allow his country to be dominated by Europeans again.

In so strongly calling into question relations with France, these three Sahelian countries have captured the imagination of millions of Africans living in other former French colonies and beyond, including in wealthier coastal states, whose official relations with France so far have not been seriously disrupted. To the clear chagrin of French President Emmanuel Macron, though, this has come to feel increasingly like a major reckoning.

Some in France have long seen this coming. In an interview in 2007, his last year in power, former French President Jacques Chirac said as much. “Don’t forget one thing, and that is that a large portion of the money that we have in our purses comes precisely from the exploitation of Africa over the centuries … So we need a little measure of good sense, I didn’t say generosity, but good sense, and justice to render to Africans, I would say, what we took from them. This is necessary if we want to avoid the most severe turmoil and difficulty, with all of the political consequences that this will bring in the near future.”

In fairness to France, with all there is to criticize, its entire legacy in sub-Saharan Africa has not been uniformly abysmal. France once oversaw the construction of large infrastructure projects in its African colonies and clients—major ports, railroads, and highways. Part of the current anger toward this former colonial power is that it has largely exited this business, ceding the realm of big projects to China.

A few of France’s former colonies, Ivory Coast in particular, are well developed by the standards of the region. Even the much-criticized CFA franc has not been thoroughly bereft of benefits, hence its staying power. The relationship with France, and through Paris, with the European Union, has long kept the CFA convertible and relatively stable, if typically overvalued—affecting the balance of trade by making these countries exports expensive and imports, notably from the Eurozone, cheaper.

Surveying Africa below the Sahara in its entirety, though, it is hard to avoid the impression that France’s former colonies generally trail their former British colony counterparts in economic development, in democratic governance, and in political stability. And this is no paean to British colonial rule or influence, which gradually dissipated after independence.

But even if one wishes to take the most benign view of colonialism and capitalism in Africa, it is hard to argue that France has done nearly enough to help foster development in its former possessions or usher them more fully into the global economy. And to some extent, this stands to reason. France, at best, is a medium-size country with a matching economy. These attributes stand in disproportionate relation to Paris’s grand and long-standing ambition of buttressing its own stature in the world by clinging to the reins of neocolonial power in the continent to the south. Africa’s galloping demographic growth makes the absurdity of this mismatch more evident by the year.

On one level, the ongoing uprising against Paris in the Sahel can be understood as a cynical ploy using populism to sustain the political power of military elites in states that have been flirting with failure for years. But there is something much more interesting going on.

There is another challenge being posed by the leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger that is likely to be far more impactful over time: they are challenging other African countries—both French and English speaking—to tear down the barriers that cripplingly divide them. More than a century ago, Europe “broke” the continent by subdividing it into cookie cutter-shaped countries, many of them small and landlocked.

Deeper African unity and federation is a dream with a surprisingly long pedigree. This was the cry of African intellectuals like J.E. Casely Hayford, in the former Gold Coast, now Ghana, early in the 20th century. More famously, it was also the obsession of Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah. Less well-remembered, this was also the cause of Barthélemy Boganda, the early leader of the Central African Republic, who hoped to federate French-speaking countries in that part of the continent under a proposed United States of Latin Africa.

What remains certain today is that a start toward the greater prosperity and well-being that all Africans yearn for will only come when these divides are eradicated, and outsiders can’t do this for them. Anger towards France is only useful if it becomes a catalyst for greater agency by Africans, who build their own regional currencies, construct their own regional rail and highways, and constitute political and economic unions that exist on more than paper.

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 196: Blackbeard the Pirate

Release date: December 24th, 1952 

Studio: RKO 

Genre: adventure 

Director: Raoul Walsh 

Producer: Edmund Grainger 

Actors: Robert Newton, Linda Darnell, William Bendix, Keith Andes, Torin Thatcher 

Plot Summary: In the late 17th century, a Lieutenant in the British Navy sets out to prove that Sir Henry Morgan, a Jamaican government official, is engaging in piracy. In the process, he winds up on the ship of the infamous Blackbeard. 

My Rating (out of five stars): **¾  

I’m not entirely sure why, but something about this film just didn’t click for me. I’m getting a little sick of seafaring/pirate movies, though, to be honest. That could certainly color my opinion! Blackbeard was played memorably, but the rest of the characters kind of fell flat. (minor spoilers) 

The Good: 

Robert Newton as Blackbeard. Yes, he sometimes chewed the scenery a bit, but he made Blackbeard a strong villain, lacking any kind of sympathetic romanticization. I much prefer that to turning him into some kind of anti-hero. 

Linda Darnell. She looked jaw droppingly gorgeous, and it’s hard to take your eyes off of her. Thank god she got to be in a better movie in 1952 than the low budget mess Island of Desire! (film number 18) 

William Bendix as Ben, Blackbeard’s sidekick. He is such a good character actor with so much screen presence. Even in a fairly small role, he stands out. 

There were certainly some interesting adventures that are pirate movie staples- I liked the treasure plot, some of the sword fighting scenes, the escape plans, etc. 

The death of Blackbeard was pretty damn unforgettable. 

The Bad: 

The romance side plot bombed, as most romance side plots in adventure movies do. The worst part was the fact that Darnell and Keith Andes had about as much chemistry as a wet match. 

I didn’t really like Keith Andes- I don’t know if it was him or the role, but he came across as pretty bland. He looked good shirtless, though! 

Darnell’s character, Edwina. She thankfully had more strength and guile than a typical damsel in distress, but barely. 

The music in these kinds of movies is usually sweeping and epic, but even within that genre the score here was too heavy-handed. It became annoyingly distracting at times. 

The adventures started bleeding together in an amorphous way that got kind of tedious after awhile.  

For a film directed by a prominent director like Raoul Walsh, it was surprisingly ho-hum visually. 

The budget, while not small, was clearly not a lavish one either. In the scenes aboard the ship, the sets were super obvious, and the models used for the long shots of the ships weren’t much better. It really compromised any feeling of being at sea.  

 Why did no one else talk like Blackbeard? He had that strong “Argh!” type of pirate accent, but no one else on his ship or in his crew did. Would his speaking really have been that different from theirs? I know, I know, this is just a pirate movie. 

[annachum]

Christine Daae actually does kinda remind me of Belle ( Beauty and the Beast ) in some ways. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Like :

. Highly intelligent, compassionate, free spirited, sweet, fearless and strong as hell

. Been through a lot of shit yet remains kind and compassionate

. Basically anti stalking an unwanted admirer ( Gaston and Phantom )

. Has a crazy love story with their husbands ( Prince Adam and Raoul ), who from a more well off background

. Close to their biological fathers

. Loves reading and exploring

. Seen as ' odd ' by some people due to having interests not seen as 'common ' ( Christine loves mythical related things - tarot cards, healing crystals, Norse Altars etc ) yet neither give a flying fuck of what others think of them

. Tries her best to be as respectful to others as possible, yet can and will stand up for themselves when neccessary and can be TERRIFYING when angered

. Stresses more on inner beauty than outer beauty

. Loves floral related accessories

. Willing to risk her life for her loved ones

. Passionate in what she does ( Belle is a gifted inventor like her dad, while Christine eventually becomes an international opera star )

[tornrose24]

Oh I forgot to add

Heisenberg, before he travels, wants to keep a record of where he has been with photos, but due to his EM powers, it is a bit difficult to find any cameras that will work in his presence (since he is electromagnetic he can’t be near any electronics and magnetic things other than maybe stuff in his metal factory).

He eventually builds his own camera and uses that. And he keeps a travel journal as well. He has lots of stories to tell Rose when he comes back to visit her, whenever that is, since as mentioned he wants to enjoy his freedom.

I think Heisenberg would take pictures of whatever he finds especially fascinating in addition to more scenic images. Like any kind of machinery or construction that he finds cool or impressive. But once in awhile if he finds himself up against someone wanting to mess with him (or whatever zombie type thing that’s still roaming the world) he might do a selfie with their beaten up body laying on the ground behind him, complete with a thumbs up and everything.

The travel journal amuses me because I can see that, but it’s ironic because Heisenberg reminds me of Raoul Duke (a journalist) from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. So I imagine whatever he writes will be almost as crazy (especially if he got into the same drugs but I’m very anti drug and would rather not go into that scenario). Though I’m not sure specifically where he’d want to go at the moment.... actually speaking of which, he probably would have fun in Vegas and messing with the machines when someone is trying to get a big win on purpose.

He’s the kind who loves an audience so of course he’d wait to see Rose in person and share the best stories for her. (Though some he’d be forced to save for when she’s older). Though it’d be funny if among the photos he shares/sends over to her, there’s one he accidentally included that’s of those selfies where he ended up beating up someone/thing I mentioned.

[phantomnostalgist]

Did Raoul fans exist in early Phantom fandom??

Oh, probably, they just sensibly hid under rocks or in the deep depths of caves, I mean...

Uh, yes. But not a lot of them. Phandom was definitely very much pro-Erik, or E/C inclined. I remember printing a pro-Raoul/anti-Erik letter in one issue of “Beneath the Mask”, from someone who used a pseudonym, and getting a lot of angry letters aimed at her in reply. I think that’s pretty natural - we tend to identify strongly with Erik as the outsider, the person rejected and subject to decades of hatred and discrimination, whereas Raoul is the privileged pretty boy, and how many of us drawn to Erik give a fuck about Raoul? I mean, he could forget about Christine and go on to live a perfectly happy life, really.

Someone told me there’s more R/C love these days than there was 20 years ago, and I wonder if that’s partly to do with the 2004 movie. Patrick Wilson’s Raoul is certainly the most sympathetic and attractive Raoul I recall seeing, not in the sense of physically attractive particularly, but in the portrayal, his acting (sure, he’s physically attractive too, but I don’t think that’s relevant to Erik partisans). Honestly, the 2004 movie enabled me to understand Raoul partisans in a way I hadn’t before, because Wilson is a) a wonderful actor, b) better than anyone else in the movie IMO, and c) contrasts with Butler’s Erik having stalked Christine since her early childhood in the movie, eeuuugh. If one sees the stage show having taken in the movie version, and projecting Gerik onto stage Erik, imagining he’s been living under the opera house most of his life and watching Christine from when she’s a young child (which does not happen in the novel or show!!), I can see how it’s easier to respond to Raoul as her true love, and see Gerik as a creepy child-grooming stalker. Yuck yuck yuck. Even though Raoul is clearly significantly older than her in the movie too, so how old was he when he ran into the sea to fetch her red scarf...? Yeah, no one thinks much about that... 

But uh, what was I saying? Oh yeah. I find it easier to understand why people who were introduced to Butler’s Gerik lean towards Christine/Raoul than those of us who were phans before the movie, which is one of the reasons I hate the movie. But certainly, there were people who argued in favour of Raoul, or who stressed the unhealthy and abusive aspects of Christine/Erik, back in the day too. They were just a very small minority, or people who expressed their views in a more careful or moderate manner (perhaps afraid of being yelled at, perhaps entirely reasonably as that definitely happened!) than over the last decade or so of phandom. 

I’ve also heard that some Christine/Raoul fans in recent internet years have become so militant they’ve tried to bully people off tumblr merely for pointing out that Leroux’s Raoul is kind of a whiny crybaby.

I don’t know how exactly people are bullied off tumblr, but Leroux’s Raoul is absolutely a whiny crybaby. 100%. COME FOR ME, RAOUL FANS. If that’s what you want to do. 

Actually I find it kinda refreshing that Leroux’s Raoul expresses his emotions; the fact he cries rather frequently in some ways mirrors Erik in the novel, who also expresses his emotions in a manner that doesn’t fit the “masculine ideal” of holding tears inside. In fact Raoul is quite often contrasted with his family’s patriarchal values, so we could see both Raoul and Erik as progressive in their dismissal of some of their society’s patriarchal values, yet as both still using their own emotional states and expressions to pressure and manipulate Christine - who could herself be seen as an early feminist heroine, in that she is the one who eventually makes the decisions and takes the actions to save/rescue both Erik and Raoul. But people who think Raoul is so much better than Erik should probably re-read Leroux. Raoul attempts to manipulate Christine plenty. 

So when I say Raoul is a whiny crybaby in Leroux, I don’t mean that to be quite as harsh a criticism as it may sound - I love that Leroux portrayed him that way. And we should remember he’s the same age as Christine, they’re both about 20 or 21, in an era where sexual awakening and ownership of our desires would have been pushed to happening later in life than it probably is for us now (where we start exploring more openly in our teens, at least openly in our own minds even if we keep it private or secret). 

So, uh, I forget what my point was. I think support or positive feelings or love of Raoul is a lot more “mainstream” now than it was in the 1990s, certainly. And that’s a good thing, really, as there are plenty of positive things to be said about Raoul and negative things to be said about Erik... but plenty of negative things to be said about Raoul too (and positive about Erik, obviously!). It’s good that the internet allows a wider range of opinion to be expressed. But if it’s true that Raoul fans have been bullying people off tumblr for saying Leroux’s Raoul is a crybaby, well, READ LEROUX AGAIN YOU NITWITS. And stop watching the goddamn 2004 movie.

[danielbranney1]

Fauvism/Cubism/Futurism/Vorticism

The first modern artists were Eduard Manet, Pablo Picasso, and Kandinsky. The first is debated among historians.

The Fauvist painters were the first to break Impressionism as well as traditional older methods of perception. Features of Fauvism included using paint straight from tube, and unnaturalistic and intense colours. Paintings were primarily landscapes. Key artists of fauvism include Henri Matisse, Andre Derain, Maurice De Vlaminck, Georges Rouault, and Raoul Dufy.

Fauvism was a short lived era, a transitional period in a lot of artist's careers. Many went on to favour cubism (except Matisse, he continued pioneering and developing fauvism)

Matisse- one of the main pioneers of Fauvism. His painting Open Window Collioure was the first real fauvist style painting. It featured unnatural colours, very vibrant and mostly complimentary. There are rectangular shapes, the walls on either side frame the view from the open window. He also makes no attempt to create an illusion of depth. Promenade among olive trees (another painting of Matisses) features broken colour, colour confidence, and blocks of colour. There’s a sense of pattern, as well as the canvas seeping through.

Andre Derain- worked closely with Matisse, short broken brushstrokes directly link with some of the post-impressionists artists. Very controlled.

Cubism rejected the idea that paintings should depict a single viewpoint. Form and space are broken down into geometric shapes. The subject matter includes still life, human figure, and interior spaces. It rejected the idea that art should come from nature and traditional perspective techniques. Key artists of cubism were Picasso and Braque.

There were two phases: analytical cubism (1907-12) and synthetic cubism (1913-21). Analytical cubism was fragmented, had multiple viewpoints, geometric forms, and a restricted palette. Synthetic cubism was more vibrant and colourful. Collage was introduced; fragments of newspaper, monoprint, tiles, texture, stencilling, more interesting shapes, interlocking of geometric shapes.

Futurism embraced the machine age and all things modern. It rejected the past and embraced the future. An important aspect of Futurism was the need to show movement in paintings creating abstract and rhythmic qualities. Futuristic art brings to mind the city, noise, heat and movement. It uses urban subject matter. It rejects cubism as it was perceived to be too intellectual and static. They were interested in creating new art which created shock value. It influenced art movements such as art deco surrealism, dada, vorticism and more.

Vorticism was all about the transformation of the world by the increasing use of technology and machinery. Verging on pure abstraction, architectural shapes coming through. Kind of anti-human in terms of style, still see a representation of context like boats, shapes of buildings etc. After the war many returned to figurative painting.

Whyndham Lewis- work has a sense of pessimism inspired by war, shows a time period of destruction. All his figures are dehumanised, turned into little abstract shapes. Very prophetic and timeless.

Vorticism Homework

What is the relevance of Vorticism? Vorticism is relevant due to the industrial developments at the time coupled with the culture of violence. It provides important insight into the time period.

What major event took place while it was developing? WW1 was the major event of the time.

What makes Vorticism unique? Vorticism is unique as it’s a sort of blend between Futurism and Cubism. The style had harsh lines and featured industrial objects and a fascination with machinery. It also reflected the violence of the times and the devastation of the war.

[glassprism]

Maybe controversial but I had to ask, other that James Barbour are there any Phantom actors you dislike as a person (not just as a performer)?!

Yeah, I was not a fan of Jordan Craig as Raoul. I enjoyed him well enough in the 2016 video with Derrick Davis and Kaitlyn Davis (though not so much in the 2018 video with Quentin Oliver Lee and Eva Tavares, and even less live), but I couldn’t stand his political viewpoints.

I think I went on his Twitter once before he made it private, and in five minutes of scrolling I saw him retweeting both fans saying that they loved his performance (”Thank you so much for your kind words, I’m loving [insert city name here]!”) and anti-feminist or transphobic rhetoric (”People wanting me to use their preferred pronouns is a violation of my right to free speech!”). I was getting such bad mood whiplash that I had to exit out; between that and my violent disagreement with everything he was retweeting, my brain was on the verge of an aneurysm.

So yep, if you ever ask, “Who’s an actor whom you actually disliked as a person”, Jordan Craig is one of the first to come to mind (after Barbour of course).

[fortunebuoyed]

listen i am down to debate and even deride the morality of my muses and their actions any time, any place, but i will die on the hill that objectively, when left to his own devices, mordaunt was absolutely right. if he was a little less grandiose in his pursuit of vengeance and hadn’t gotten sucked into cromwell’s promises, the man would be an unparalleled anti-hero of his own story. boy just wants to avenge his mother who was executed in a kangaroo court and lash out at the man responsible for turning a five year old child out onto the street. 

yeah singling out raoul was a dick move, and yes, everything he did for cromwell is a fleet of yikes on trikes, but our heroes still took justice into their own hands, an act which had far reaching consequences for an innocent and enabled the kind of man who would deny a child any comfort based on the sins of his mother to obtain greater power. the only thing mordaunt ever did wrong was give in to his stupid impulsive de la fere genes.

[letterboxd]

Empathy Machine: The Value of Film.

Kambole Campbell surveys the rapid rise in films our members are watching to deepen their understanding of racism, and recommends some deeper cuts once you’ve finished with the ‘first five’: 13th, Do The Right Thing, I Am Not Your Negro, Malcolm X and Selma.

As worldwide action against police violence (as well as a normalization of state-sponsored racism and armed-citizen violence) continues in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, it can feel strange and perhaps inappropriate to be talking about film, or even considering it.

But although the act of engaging with film is far from activism, there is still value to be found. These events are cyclical, and painful, and exhausting; you shouldn’t insist that your Black friends help you understand, you should be doing the work yourself. One easy way to start: with the many creative and galvanizing works by Black filmmakers. The likes of Spike Lee, Ava DuVernay, Cheryl Dunye and so many others have already done the job, all you have to do is watch.*

And, as clichéd as it feels to invoke, the simplest reasoning comes from Roger Ebert, who said: “Movies are the most powerful empathy machine in all the arts. When I go to a great movie I can live somebody else’s life for a while. I can walk in somebody else’s shoes.”

A lot of Letterboxd members feel the same way. Just as cinephiles flocked to Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion as the coronavirus pandemic began to spread, viewings of the likes of Ava DuVernary’s documentary 13th, Spike Lee’s magnum opus Do the Right Thing and Raoul Peck’s elegiac James Baldwin essay film I Am Not Your Negro—along with more films focused on Black experience, history and protest—have spiked in viewing and review numbers in the past fortnight.

Malcolm X, Selma, Daughters of the Dust, The Hate U Give, If Beale Street Could Talk, Just Mercy, Fruitvale Station, and more are all enjoying an undeniable surge of viewership—in some cases, an increase of a thousand percent over their historical viewership numbers. And a matching rise in the number of reviews gives us insight into the feelings, or sense of catharsis, people are seeking from these films. Here, we take a survey of recent reactions to the top five—followed by suggestions for digging deeper.

Activist and scholar Angela Davis in ‘13th’.

13th (2016) Directed by Ava DuVernay

At the time of writing, 13th was the current most popular film by volume of activity on Letterboxd. (Within 24 hours of its release, Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods jumped into the top spot, with 13th now in second place.) It’s easy to see why Letterboxd members gravitated to the film—Ava DuVernay’s 2016 documentary on the loophole of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which effectively allows slavery in the modern day, is comprehensive and convincing.

Built around interviews with a number of Black academics and a thorough history of Jim Crow laws through to modern-day mass incarceration in the US, it’s an important and effective primer for anyone looking for a basic comprehension of new methods of oppression from the state. Part of the film’s power comes from, as member and film critic Josh Lewis puts it, “the way DuVernay sequences this, the way she moves us through the major events, records and timelines with passion and anger, allowing Black voices and art to naturally narrate”.

As with a number of films from the last decade that examine Black protest, there’s a juxtaposition between modern imagery and rhetoric, and systemic racism from a history that America too often insists it has left behind. It makes clear the repetition of this history of oppression for Black Americans with powerful editing, as DuVernay organizes archive footage from the past through to the present day to emphasise this point.

Spike Lee on the set of ‘Do the Right Thing’ (1989).

Do The Right Thing (1989) Directed by Spike Lee

It could be said that the recognition of this repetition is part of why these particular films have proven so popular in recent weeks. Perhaps the most significant part of the engagement with older work like Spike Lee’s (arguably best) film Do The Right Thing, is that the imagery hasn’t aged. As Ashley Clark says in a recent piece for Time on films about Black history and protest, “…it’s amazing to see those patterns repeat now, specifically in the discourse of people focusing more on the destruction of property than on lives that are lost”. Do The Right Thing’s palpable anger and unending relevance make it one of the best fictional films to watch right now, if not for understanding and empathy (“I have a lot of empathizing to do,” Letterboxd member Ted agrees), then for some kind of catharsis.

Denzel Washington as Malcolm X in Spike Lee’s 1992 biopic.

Malcolm X (1992) Directed by Spike Lee

It’s not just Do The Right Thing either—even just going off the numbers, Spike Lee is a go-to name when it comes to engaging with Black people’s history in America and in American film. He’s been engaging with these subjects of protest and anguish for the longest time, and there are few such prolific directors in the way he broaches the subject, crossing the line back and forth between fiction and non-fiction, readily blending the two together in many cases.

That status feels evident in the corresponding surges of popularity for Malcolm X, one of his most acclaimed works, and BlacKkKlansman, one of his most recent. His latest work, the excellent, galvanizing war drama Da 5 Bloods (streaming on Netflix now), acts as a reminder that institutional racism is not just a symptom of the current establishment, but something deeply embedded in American ideology. It’s a multimedia examination of the overlap of racism and imperialism, its arguments backed up by clips of Angela Davis, Kwame Ture, Muhammad Ali and of course Malcolm X.

Malcolm X is a valuable watch in that it provides a loving and complex portrait of a man often vilified by white liberals as much as white conservatives, an example of the ‘wrong’ way to protest or take action. It’s a counterpoint to the reductive and often-held perspective of the man, who is often presumed to have stood in opposition to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s a humanist portrait of a man constantly changing, one brought to life by, as Jaime Rebenal writes, “one of cinema’s very finest performances” from Denzel Washington (whom, I must reinforce, was truly robbed of that Oscar). A long film, but not a minute wasted.

David Oyelowo is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Ava DuVernay’s ‘Selma’ (2014).

Selma (2014) Directed by Ava DuVernay

On the flip-side of this is Ava DuVernay’s Selma, which paints an equally complicated portrait of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., focusing on the organized action that lead to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “As sobering as it is galvanizing” writes Letterboxd member and correspondent Ella Kemp. Selma’s vision of MLK was of a complicated man, one steadfast in his commitment to peaceful resistance and protest for civil rights, but still a man as opposed to a saint.

I could talk at length about that supposed saintliness being thrown back in the faces of Black people, as well as the gossip compounded by American institutions to discredit the man’s work—DuVernay and David Oyelowo’s interpretation of MLK saves me that time.

All beautifully lensed by the—at that point—upcoming cinematographer Bradford Young (whose subsequent credits include Arrival and Solo: A Star Wars Story), and with typically gorgeous costume design from Black Panther Oscar-winner Ruth E. Carter (a long-time associate of Spike Lee), it’s a visual treat as well.

Novelist, poet, playwright, essayist and activist James Baldwin.

I Am Not Your Negro (2016) Directed by Raoul Peck

I Am Not Your Negro, Raoul Peck’s documentary-slash-adaptation of the unpublished James Baldwin memoir, provides a similar juxtaposition between America’s past racism and its present. Narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, words from Baldwin’s unfinished manuscript ‘Remember This House’ explore American anti-Blackness through a mixture of archival footage and anecdotes from Baldwin, as he recounts the lives of his civil rights leader friends Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers and others.

As with many other Letterboxd reviews, Daisoujou reflects on the persistence of state-sponsored racism, writing that it’s “a movie that feels like it was made yesterday, based on writings from roughly the 80s, which also feel written yesterday, in the most depressing way”. A lot of identifying with films detailing Black protest is to recognize this cycle, the seeming neverending-ness of it all; that engagement with racism is not just something occurring in the present moment but something that carries the weight of history, at all times.

A scene from Cheryl Dunye’s ‘The Watermelon Woman’ (1996).

These are all strong starting points for the beginning of an empathy with Black protest, struggle, history and art on film. But it’s just scratching the surface. The five films above mostly skew towards the recent, when there’s a long and exceptional history of Black cinema.

It’s important to consider the expansiveness of Black art, that not all of it is about our tragedies, there’s more to witness than our pain, and this deserves attention after crisis as well. K. Austin Collins’ introduction for his Vanity Fair list says it best: “Black defiance on-screen is bigger than Do the Right Thing, however. Black defiance (including but not limited to outright protest), Black anger, Black art: These are vast territories.” As Collins’ excellent two-part list states, the history of our representation and the self-determination of our on-screen legacies of course goes far beyond just the work of Spike Lee and Ava DuVernay.

You could watch Cheryl Dunye’s The Watermelon Woman for a film examining just that: how the narrow idea of ‘representation’ has failed so many, that their own histories have to be invented, and how Black people often have to deal with art’s frequent rejection of their own image.

You could watch the work of Kathleen Collins, you could watch Paris is Burning for a history of New York City ballrooms and drag culture (and here’s K. Austin Collins again with a recent re-reading of that film, in conversation with its white director). The history of Black Britishness also often gets left at the wayside—both Collins and Clark recommend Handsworth Songs and Blacks Britannica for pictures of Black thought and struggle in the context of Thatcher’s Britain (and many more in their aforementioned lists, both well worth checking out).

The protests have also, naturally, lead to conversations around representation of Black people across media, in front of and behind the camera. Such discovery is both vital and easier than ever, as the protests have inspired artists and streaming sites to make their library of work more accessible—among those, the Criterion Channel, having dropped the paywall for much of its collection focusing on Black lives.

Related content

Black Life on Film: a master list, and broken down into sub-genres, by Adam Davie (he discussed the list, a three-year labor of love, on episode 6 of The Letterboxd Show podcast).

Black Saint’s list of Films by Black Directors You Should Watch.

Queer, Black, 21st Century: a list of 21st-century films featuring queer, Black experiences, by Black filmmakers (directors and/or writers), for Pride 2020.

Letterboxd’s official top 100 narrative feature films by Black directors

*It’s important to remember amongst all this that just watching these films isn’t activism; action is also required. Educating yourself is just the first step. Ways you can help, tangibly.

[gracie-p8-officialblog]

March 2-Crossover/AU

Christine: ✨☺️

Raoul: 😮💦❤️💕💓💕❤️

Me:😭💖

Aka. The best. BEST. best scene from Anastasia (both the movie and the musical). The moment where Dmitri's all like "Oh my gosh, it really is her..." and I'm... Soft™.

Anyway, this is part 1 of my entry for Day 4 of @raoulstineweek.

Personally, I've been on an Anastasia kick while trying to write my ongoing R/C Anastasia AU which is more musical-based because I feel like though my nostalgia really loves the original movie, the Rasputin being a necromancer(?) kind of? doesn’t work as well for me as the more historically-adjacent version with the government pursuing them (though historical is a strong word for any of them). Don't worry, it contains easter eggs from the film in certain chapters. (it also has a minor Phillipe/Sorelli subplot for those who are fans of this yet another underappreciated couple)

Anyways, this scene is based on the moment where Anya reveals the iconic blue evening gown™ to Dmitri before watching the ballet.

So I guess this makes Erik Gleb, but a more angstier, melodramatic Gleb? Because the parallels between these two anti-heroes are WAY too obvious to notice :P. Or maybe it's because of Ramin, yeah, that's probably why.

[kwat01]

I love Reaper Man! What are your favorite parts about POTO? What about the story makes you love it so much? Also, do you read ebooks? If so, what format? --Secret Santa

It's so hard discuss what i like about the Phantom of the opera sometimes because there is just so much. My favourite version is by far the original novel by Leroux, but I did enjoy a lot of Kay's retelling as well. I appreciate the musical too but my heart lies with Leroux Erik through and through. He is just so unpredictable, so creepy and powerful, completely mad, and the past/background information you get from the Daroga's narration just leaves you asking more questions! He has his own freaking torture chamber just for shits and giggles! What's not to love and appreciate there? I always had the impression he'd completely come to terms and embraced his eccentric, over the top, ridiculous theatrical side. Accepted that he would always be an outcast no one would understand or love, just wholeheartedly embraced it, decided to set up camp, so to speak, under the opera house, where he'd have access to a plethora of exotic costumes to remind him of his travels abroad. A constant flow of superstitious, ignorant victims to play mind games with and play pranks on, and if any should accidentally die in the process, no skin off his nose... HA! I'm so sorry, outrageously inappropriate pun XD this is also the kind of terrible humour I expect Leroux Erik to have.

Everything was going great for him, unlimited funds from management, consistent morally-questionable entertainment on tap, until a certain blond bombshell came along and made him question whether he was happy with his lot in life after all. She not only met his rage and eccentricities head on, but came back for more, even after he let her go! I imagine this utterly confounding him to the point he could no longer LET her go. Enter scene, make your choice or perish the lot of you... he's just DONE. You can see how torn she is between worlds too, she wanted him to hear her sing one last time, she could have run off with Raoul the night before, but nooooo.

The whole story is a good example of a broken man finding redemption, but it also just does such a good job of representing characters exactly as they are, whether they be liars, brave heroes, jealous lovers, mourning daughters, concerned friends, antagonists etc... They all behave selfishly at one point or another, and do a damn good job of hurting each other, and in the end you're left scratching your head trying to figure out who the “bad guy" is, and completely unsure of what exactly just happened because PLOT HOLES. And bless Leroux for those many MANY plot holes because we wouldn't have the healthy number of adaptations available to us today if he hadn't been so damn vague XD

I'm so sorry for the dissertation! In summary, it's the characters, the fact that you can't (well at least I can't) hate any of them, they're all just so human and interesting, it's all shades of grey, no black and white, I'm sure many other phans would argue with me, but that's what I feel and what sucks me back in for more again and again.

In answer to second half of your question, in general I'm not big into ebooks, I'm not anti, I just love actual books so much, they make me happy lol. I do have a Kindle account but I am also open to better suggestions for digital reading if you have any, am happy to download/join other apps if you know any good ones :)

[chiseler]

W.R. BURNETT

William Riley Burnett isn't quite as well known as other crime writers like Hammett and Chandler, but the titles of several W. R. Burnett novels and films everybody knows. His career and his influence stretched from gangster novels and movies, which he went a long way to defining, through noir to blaxploitation and beyond.

According to Burnett, a good place to begin his story is in a fleabag in Chicago, when he was a twenty-seven-year-old hayseed from Ohio who in six years had written some one hundred stories and five novels, not one of them published. On his first night in the big city, sleeping in that cheap hotel, he was jolted out of bed by a series of explosions across the street. Rival gangsters had been arguing over the rake in the parking garage across the street. Things got heated and they started throwing hand grenades -- "pineapples," folks called them then. That was Chicago in 1928. "Capone was King," Burnett later wrote. "Corruption was rampant... Gangsters were shooting each other all over town; in fact, I 'heard' one killing over the radio. It happened in a cafe while a dance-band broadcast was in progress. Two shots came over distinctly, the music slurred to an abrupt stop, then the air went dead."

Intrigued, Burnett started hanging out with cops and hoods, taking notes, and ended up writing a gangster novel he originally titled The Furies. The first New York publisher he sent it to rejected it. He gave it a new title and sent it off again. In 1929 it was published as Little Caesar.

Along with Hammett, whose Red Harvest had come out six months earlier, Burnett was fashioning a new class of crime novel as literate pulp, just as the syndicates were emerging and the Depression was about to redraw the entire social landscape. The writing is very spare in a Hemingwayish way, yet vividly descriptive when it needs to be. His characters have names like Scabby and Limpy John and Killer Pepi, and they speak a Chicago gangster patois he'd heard on the streets, full of hard guys pumping lead out of gats and rods, new to most readers at the time but soon universally recognized. They're vain to the point of girlishness, constantly fussing with their hair and fawn-colored spats and diamond stick pins. They're cocky and quick to take offense because they're so insecure. They're far more tender, sympathetic and loving with each other than they are with their dames. "I would not shoot Rico if he shot me first," one says. "Rico is my friend and I love him with a great love." Rico ends up forfeiting his life because he can't bring himself to shoot an old pal. As opposed to:

Olga Stassoff was just putting the finishing touches to her make-up. Joe came in softly and stood watching her. She began to sing.  

"If you're singing for me," said Joe, "you can stop any time."  

Olga turned around.  

"Well, what are you doing here? Broke?"  

"Shut up," said Joe.  

Then he turned and walked out of the room.

Scholars have made much of the homoerotic subtext in all this, but then scholars can see homoerotic subtext in a stick of gum. Probably what Burnett was really picking up on was the peculiarities of Mediterranean masculinity as expressed in the largely Italian milieu of the late-1920s Chicago gangster. Film historian Thomas Doherty points out that "foreign" gangsters -- Italians, Jews -- were still pretty mysterious to a lot of Americans; through the 1920s they'd heard more about all-American outlaws like Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson. The rise of organized crime syndicates -- whom Burnett much later called "just businessmen who don’t abide by the rules" -- was also news to many Americans at the time.

Little Caesar was an instant hit. So of course was the film adaptation. The movie was a huge box office success at a time when the Depression was cutting attendance figures by half, and it made Edward G. Robinson a star. It's not nearly as tough or brisk as the book, though Robinson is great in it. Both the book and the movie had their share of critics who expressed outrage that Burnett seemed to be sympathizing with and "humanizing" his hoodlum characters.

Hollywood called and Burnett answered. For the next forty years he'd be there, writing both novels and films, many of them successful, a few of them classics.

There was The Beast of the City in 1932, with Walter Huston as an unscrupulously tough crime-busting cop who'd later be seen as a pre-echo of Dirty Harry. Howard Hughes called on Burnett to make some sense of more than a dozen draft screenplays for Scarface, based on the Armitage Trail novel published around the same time as Little Caesar. Burnett compiled the best scenes into a master draft, then Ben Hecht applied the polish. The result was the last of the great pre-Code gangster films, a movie much harder and more raw than Little Caesar.

Butnett's oddball 1935 comedy The Whole Town's Talking is a kind of meta-crime story, with Edward G. Robinson brilliantly playing two roles, sometimes in split-screen, as a meek bank clerk who's identical to a vicious killer. Jean Arthur's great in her snappy role too, but then isn't she always. Burnett's prizefighter novel Iron Man was made into three films, Iron Man in 1931, Some Blondes Are Dangerous in 1937, and Iron Man again in 1951. His novella Dr. Socrates, about the clash of a small-town doctor and a hoodlum on the lam, was first serialized in Collier's, then made into the 1935 film of the same name. It starred the great Paul Muni and Ann Dvorak, who'd been paired a few years earlier as the possibly incestuous Tony and Cesca Camonte in Scarface. It was remade in 1939 as the Bogart vehicle King of the Underworld.  

By his 1940 novel High Sierra, both Burnett's writing and his tough guys had fully matured. His style is more relaxed, still handsomely descriptive but with more psychological depth. Roy Earle in the book is more broken and melancholy than the Dillinger-inspired outlaw Bogart plays in the film, more jittery and uncomfortable in the world after years in stir. He's not thoroughly a bad man, more of a bad-luck stray like the dog Pard. He's weary and lonesome and sick, showing his age in his inability to control either his flashes of snarling violence or his fits of nostalgic longing. The newspapers call him Mad Dog but Old Dog would be more fitting. His affair with Marie, the only other character as tough and savvy as he is, would be totally mysterious to the hard guys in Little Caesar.

The film adaptation came out in 1941, directed by Raoul Walsh, with a screenplay by Burnett and John Huston that's pretty faithful to the book, though they made the necessary Hollywood concessions. In the novel, Velma's not the innocent little hick she is in the film -- she's damaged goods in more ways than the clubfoot -- and it's explicit that Marie starts out "just a lay," as Roy tells her, then worms her way into his heart just like Pard does. Burnett and Huston tacked on the movie's big melodramatic climax as well. In the book Roy makes sure Marie and Pard are well out of harm's way, then dies alone up in the mountains, shot by a gunman he never sees, taking his bullet quietly, almost wistfully. It probably wouldn't have made good cinema but it's a more fitting end for him. This movie would also get remade twice, as a Western in the 1949 Colorado Territory and then as the grimy 1955 I Died a Thousand Times, with Jack Palance as Earle and Shelley Winters doing the Ida Lupino role.

Having helped to invent the modern gangster novel and picture, Burnett wrote some of the darkest, hardest, and ethically murkiest postwar noir, creating a world where it's nearly impossible to tell the good guys from the bad ones because most everybody's tainted or bent in some way. In the 1946 Nobody Lives Forever, John Garfield is both a war hero and a con man. When he comes home from the warfront, like a lot of other vets he tries to pick up his old life, only to find everything's changed while he was gone. It's sort of The Best Years of Our Lives for hoodlums.

In The Asphalt Jungle, published in 1949, the world's gone so dirty and upside down that the supposedly upstanding citizens are actually worse than the bad guys. The cop and the lawyer are more crooked and sleazy than the hoods who pull the heist, and some of them are plenty sleazy. Like Roy Earle, Dix Handley is a throwback, a farmboy operating by a kind of Old West outlaw code of honor he probably read as a kid in pulp magazines. He's pulled down by lowlifes who are thoroughly modern and urban, and as innocent of ethics as rats in an alley. Huston made the film the following year. It reappeared as the forgotten 1963 George Sanders movie Cairo and again in 1972 as the blaxploitation flick Cool Breeze. A tv crime series called The Asphalt Jungle ran for one season in 1961.

Burnett also co-wrote the screenplay for This Gun for Hire, adapted from the Graham Greene novel. He adapted the Eric Ambler spy novel Background to Danger, worked on the anti-syndicate potboiler The Racket and on several Westerns and wartime pictures.

He was still at it in the 1960s, still writing crime novels like The Cool Man, published in 1968. At a time when other pulp writers were cranking out endless knockoffs of James Bond or trying to get with the hippies and drugs, Burnett stuck with what he knew best. Like High Sierra and The Asphalt Jungle it's about a big heist gone wrong, leaving some of the crooks dead and the rest spatting over the spoils. Now almost all his hard guys are anachronisms, noir characters who've survived into the Swingin' Sixties by wits, guile or just brute force. They're at the opposite end of life from the cocky young narcissists in Little Caesar, old guys moving deliberately down crooked paths they know by rote, pursuing their agendas -- money, revenge, self-preservation, sex -- by instinct now. When fate throws them curves they take it, like Roy Earle would have, with a resigned shrug. By the end of the book all their machinations have just sort of petered out; a few of them are dead and the rest are stranded like sharks out of water. You have to wonder if Burnett was feeling a bit like that himself by this point.

Burnett also co-wrote the screenplay for The Great Escape with James Clavell, his last Hollywood coup. He did some uncredited work on Ice Station Zebra, and wrote episodes for several tv series, including Naked City, The Untouchables and, of course, The Asphalt Jungle, as well as a lot of Westerns. His eyesight failing, he didn't write so much in the 1970s. But he was still able to bring his whole career full circle with his last book, Goodbye, Chicago, set in 1928, the year he got there. It was published in 1981 and he died the next year.

by John Strausbaugh

[walkingshcdow-a]

🔥 gimme the salt on poto

Satly Saturday | Buckle Up. | Accepting!

Do you want ALL THE SALT or just some of it? Because i feel like I could write a dissertation on everything wrong with PotO and, more specifically, the Phandom and be only a diploma shy from my doctorate. 

One of the things I’m incredibly angry about is that it is still an “unpopular opinion” that Meg Giry is anything but blonde and white. In the novel, she is described as “swarthy” with dark hair and eyes, but even if that were not the case, who does it harm to headcanon her as a WoC? I think it is much more damaging to ascribe white traits and white traits only to her, not only because in the Leroux text, she is not white, but because other interpretations of PotO, whether they be the stage show or a roleplay portrayal, should be more open to diversity in general. The world is diverse. And the world was diverse in the 19th century. Historians, novelists, and filmmakers tend to whitewash history and create a false monolith of Europe and the Americas, except when it furthers a particular narrative (typically revolving around the American South, even when the American South has no bearing on a story, like PotO, which takes place in a different country altogether). It’s disgusting. 

The thing that gets me, though, is that the Phandom largely just accepts that Meg Giry is white and blonde. That’s the way it is in the stage show and since stage shows (and their subsequent film adaptations) are visual mediums, whereas novels rely on imagination, it’s “easier” to use images from the show to make aesthetics, fan art, etc. about Meg. It’s pure laziness most of the time; ignorance in other instances. This, to me, is dangerous in a different way than adamantly demanding Meg Be White for thinly veiled reasons tied up in racism. We know the latter is wrong. We take people to task on the latter. We demand more and better from our fandoms than casual, but intentional, racism. When it’s unintentional… or when it’s intentional because 99 percent of media including Meg Giry whitewashes her, we still hit that like button or that reblog button, instead of demanding better from our fandoms. I’m not calling for people to spam content creators with vitriol over their blonde, cherubic Meg Girys. I am calling for people to create more black Meg Girys, more Asian Meg Girys, more Jewish Meg Girys, more Latina Meg Girys, more Middle Eastern Meg Girys. Take what precious little Leroux gave us about her and expand your interpretation. Be kind to interpretations that are racially/ethnically different than the norm, or even than your own. The headcanons someone is posting about a Romani Meg Giry might be their way of connecting their own heritage to the text, of seeking representation that was hinted at in the book and destroyed in later interpretations. The fan art of a black Meg Giry might be a young woman’s way of seeing herself or her friends or her sisters in an art form (ballet) that has traditionally been unkind to WoC. Meg as a woman of color is so important - especially when you dare to mash up Leroux with ALW because the traits they each give her, when put together, create a complex and nuanced young woman that anyone might be happy to identify with. Whitewashing her takes that opportunity away from fans, especially young fans, who do not otherwise see themselves reflected in this beautiful melodrama. Ad who wants to be the gate keeper to a world of fun and joy? The ones we should be taking to task are the casting directors of PotO productions - especially in the US and UK, since those shows are most widely seen and publicized. Not just the ALW show (although I do hold the ALW show responsible for whitewashing Meg in the first place), but future productions of PotO by other creators. 

I also think that for people who aren’t fans of Meg, who don’t pay her much mind, don’t understand why this is such a contentious issue for those of us who love her, whether we love her from Leroux, Webber, or another iteration. For me, the version I take issue with is the ALW version… largely because I believe ALW Meg to be a composite of Meg Giry, La Sorelli, and Cecile Jammes from the Leroux novel. You see traits of each woman reflected in ALW Meg. She’s aged up, perhaps not prima ballerina, but a principal dancer. She’s superstitious, but level-headed. Kind, almost maternal, but bubbly and fun. She’s bold and fascinated by the strange goings-on around her. If ALW had wanted to give her the blonde, blue-eyed good looks of a Barbie Doll, he would have done better to name her after Jammes, who has a peaches and cream complexion in the novel. He could have even named her after Sorelli, though this move would have been more difficult, since Sorelli was a principal dancer and not the daughter of one of Erik’s employees. No. He chose to name her after Meg Giry and elevate her to secondary character status. The least he could have done was make her look the part. It would not have been the first time a principal cast member in an ALW was a PoC. Ben Vereen played Judas in the Broadway debut of JCS. So, why so scared to cast a black woman (or, really, any WoC) as Meg Giry? Come on, ALW. Would it have been so hard? It could have started the conversation about race in period dramas or the conversation about racism in the fine arts (especially ballet) twenty or thirty years earlier. And even if it didn’t, PotO would still be the beautiful leviathan it is today. 

Of course, I know that in a post-LND world, a lot of people have bigger complaints about Meg Giry’s treatment in modern stagings. I agree with them - the characterization of Meg Giry in LND is painful to watch. It’s inconsistent with what we know of her in the original show; it certainly is divorced from the novel in all ways. The flaws with Meg’s character in LND have nothing to do with the fact that she’s made into a sex worker (although that choice is questionable from a narrative standpoint, not a moral one. What does it add to Meg’s arc that she sold herself to help buy Phantasma? The implication that we’re meant to see her as lesser than Christine for it is the real moral quandary, But I digress). Rather, the flaws with Meg’s character stem from her being inconsistent with all previous and recognizable versions of her character and with the anti-feminist need to pit two women, who were previously the best of friends, against each other over a man… Not even a man who treats one or both of them right… like… it pits two best friends against each other over an abusive narcissist. It does no characters any favors, least of all poor Meg, who is made out to be needy, jealous, emotionally unstable… It does a poor job getting from Point A to Point B. 

This bastardization of Meg’s character would probably seem like a great bullet to dodge, insofar as representation goes. I think it would be absolutely disgusting to cast a black woman as LND Meg, due to all the negative stereotyping that would end up clouding even the best performance. However, LND was not the commercial or critical success ALW hoped it would be. Not even close. It underwent a lot of rewritings, still was not highly successful, and (by and large) disappoints both fans of the original story and newcomers to the PotO story. It is nowhere near the cultural phenomenon that PotO is. And so, then, again I ask - why have we not seen a WoC in the role of Meg? It’s only very recently that we’ve seen PoC in the roles of Christine, the Phantom, and Raoul. Meg is still depicted as white. I’m hoping that the trend of diversifying Broadway is more than a trend, but instead a cultural shift in how Broadway appeals to the masses. I hope to see a WoC play Meg (and Madame Giry, who I’ve neglected to mention until now, woops) within my lifetime. 

Honestly, I think that I only really started thinking about this critically two years ago when my Salt Squad and I got talking about representation in the Phandom, particularly in the RPC. I was rereading Leroux at the time and meditating on Kay (as one does) in my spare time and it occurred to me that if I wanted to see some change in the Phandom, I had to be a part of the side I wanted to see prevail. I had to be some of the change I wanted to see in the Phandom. So I took up Meg as a muse. I’m starting to see more and more racially diverse Megs in the Phandom and that thrills me. I want to @fillescharmxnt because her Meg is what I aspired for mine to be in so many ways. There are plenty of other fanartists, fic writers, and aesthetic makers who are doing such great things with recontextualizing Meg Giry for the 21st century.

I do want to include this disclaimer, though: just because someone is roleplaying, writing, drawing, headcanoning Meg as white, doesn’t mean that their ideas are without merit. There are plenty of very talented artists, writers, and bloggers who depict Meg as white. My goal is not to shame them - a lot of them do great work, both from a technical and emotional standpoint - but rather to invite them to the conversation about Meg Giry, race, and representation. I urge these fans to challenge their notions about Meg Giry and to be open to accepting ideas that are different from theirs. Even those of us who HC Meg as a WoC enjoy and support content with blonde Meg (like… can we talk about the Brazilian actress with the freckles?!). All I ask is that fans of white Meg Giry enjoy and support content with black/Asian/Jewish/Romani/Latina/Middle Eastern/Other Meg Giry in return. 

Fans can question the media they consume. Fans can challenge the media they consume. But at the end of the day, it is the media that we create and ask to be created that make the most difference. The only way media gets created is if there is a demand for. Be willing to demand a more inclusive, more historically accurate depiction of Meg Giry and you will be rewarded with a creative explosion of fan created content.