#only problem is jacob is white but the vibes between the two would fit the story

[rosyrequiems]

that one jenna ortega and jacob elordi twilight casting but make it violet and xaden

[pumpkinpaix]

Hello! Feel free not to answer this question if it is in any way too much, but I've been wondering about something concerning the "western" mdzs fandom. Lately, i have seen multiple pieces of fanart that use what is clearly Christian symbolism and sometimes downright iconography in depicting the characters. I'm a european fan, but it still makes me vaguely uneasy. I know that these things are rarely easy to judge. I'm definitely not qualified to do so and was wondering if you have an opinion

Hi there! thank you for your patience and for the interesting question! I’ve been thinking about this since i received this ask because it?? idk, it’s difficult to answer, but it also touches on a a few things that I find really interesting.

the short answer: it’s complicated, and I also don’t know what I feel!

the longer answer:

i think that this question is particularly difficult to answer because of how deeply christianity is tied to the western art and literary canon. so much of what is considered great european art is christian art! If you just take a quick glance at wiki’s page on european art, you can see how inextricable christianity is, and how integral christian iconography has been in the history of european art. If you study western art history, you must study christian imagery and christian canon because it’s just impossible to engage with a lot of the work in a meaningful way without it. that’s just the reality of it.

Christianity, of course, also has a strong presence in european colonial and imperialist history and has been used as a tool of oppression against many peoples and nations, including China. I would be lying if I said I had a good relationship with Christianity--I have always faced it with a deep suspicion because I think it did some very, very real damage, not just to chinese people, but to many cultures and peoples around the world, and that’s not a trauma that can be easily brushed aside or reconciled with.

here is what is also true: my maternal grandmother was devoutly christian. my aunt is devoutly christian. my uncle’s family is devoutly christian. my favorite cousin is devoutly christian. when I attended my cousin’s wedding, he had both a traditional chinese ceremony (tea-serving, bride-fetching, ABSURDLY long reception), and also a christian ceremony in a church. christianity is a really important part of his life, just as it’s important to my uncle’s family, and as it was important to my grandmother. I don’t think it’s my right or place to label them as simply victims of a colonialist past--they’re real people with real agency and choice and beliefs. I think it would be disrespectful to act otherwise.

that doesn’t negate the harm that christianity has done--but it does complicate things. is it inherently a bad thing that they’re christian, due to the political history of the religion and their heritage? that’s... not a question I’m really interested in debating. the fact remains that they are christian, that they are chinese, and that they chose their religion.

so! now here we are with mdzs, a chinese piece of media that is clearly Not christian, but is quickly gaining popularity in euroamerican spaces. people are making fanart! people are making A LOT of fanart! and art is, by nature, intertextual. a lot of the most interesting art (imo) makes deliberate use of that! for example (cyan art nerdery time let’s go), Nikolai Ge’s What is Truth?

I love this painting! it’s notable for its unusual depiction of christ: shabby, unkempt, slouched, in shadow. if you look for other paintings of this scene, christ is usually dignified, elegant, beautiful, melancholy -- there’s something very humanizing and humbling about this depiction, specifically because of the way it contrasts the standard. it’s powerful because we as the audience are expected to be familiar with the iconography of this scene, the story behind it, and its place in the christian canon.

you can make similar comments about Gentileschi’s Judith vs Caravaggio’s, or Manet’s Olympia vs Ingres’ Grande Odalisque -- all of these paintings exist in relation to one another and also to the larger canon (i’m simplifying: you can’t just compare one to another directly in isolation etc etc.) Gauguin’s Jacob Wrestling the Angel is also especially interesting because of how its portrayal of its content contrasts to its predecessors!

or! because i’m really In It now, one of my favorite paintings in the world, Joan of Arc by Bastien-Lepage:

I just!!! gosh, idk, what’s most interesting to me in this painting is the way it seems to hover between movements: the hyperrealistic, neoclassical-esque take on the figure, but the impressionistic brushstrokes of the background AAA gosh i love it so much. it’s really beautiful if you ever get a chance to see it in person at the Met. i’m putting this here both because i personally just really like it and also as an example of how intertextuality isn’t just about content, but also about visual elements.

anyways, sorry most of this is 19thc, that was what i studied the most lol.

(a final note: if you want to read about a really interesting painting that sits in the midst of just a Lot of different works, check out the wiki page on Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa, specifically under “Interpretation and Legacy”)

this is all a really long-winded way of getting to this point: if you want to make allusory fanart of mdzs with regards to western art canon, you kind of have to go out of your way to avoid christian imagery/iconography, especially when that’s the lens through which a lot of really intensely emotional art was created. many of my favorite paintings are christian: Vrubel’s Demon, Seated, Perov’s Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Ge’s Conscience, Judas, Bastien-Lepage’s Joan of Arc, as shown above. that’s not to say there ISN’T plenty of non-christian art -- but christian art is very prominent and impossible to ignore.

so here are a few pieces of fanwork that I’ve seen that are very clearly making allusions to christian imagery:

1. this beautiful pietà nielan by tinynarwhals on twitter

2. a lovely jiang yanli as our lady of tears by @satuwilhelmiina

3. my second gif in this set here, which I will also show below:

i’m only going to talk about mine in depth because well, i know exactly what i was thinking when I put this gif together while I can’t speak for anyone else.

first: the two lines of the song that I wanted to use for lan xichen were “baby, I’m a fighter//in the robes of a saint” because i felt that they fit him very well. of course, just the word “saint” evokes catholicism, even if it’s become so entwined in the english language that it’s taken on a secular meaning as well.

second: when I saw this scene, my immediate thought was just “PIETÀ!!” because LOOK at that composition! lan xichen’s lap! nie mingjue lying perpendicular to it! the light blue/white/silver of lan xichen in contrast to the darker robes of both nie mingjue and meng yao! not just that, but the very cool triangular structure of the image is intensely striking, and Yes, i Do love that it simultaneously ALSO evokes deposition of christ vibes. (baxia as the cross.... god..... is that not the Tightest Shit) does this make meng yao joseph of arimathea? does it make him john the evangelist? both options are equally interesting, I think when viewed in relation to his roles in the story: as a spy in qishan and as nmj’s deputy. maybe he’s both.

anyways, did I do this intentionally? yes, though a lot of it is happy accident/discovered after the fact since I’m relying on CQL to have provided the image. i wanted to draw attention to all of that by superimposing that line over that image! (to be clear: I didn’t expect it to all come through because like. that’s ridiculous. the layers you’d have to go through to get from “pretty lxc gifset” --> “if we cast nie mingjue as a christ figure, what is the interesting commentary we could do on meng yao by casting him as either joseph of arimathea or john the evangelist” are like. ok ur gonna need to work a little harder than slapping a song lyric over an image to achieve an effect like that.)

the point of this is: yes, it’s intentionally christian, yes I did this, yes I am casting these very much non-christian characters into christian roles for this specific visual work -- is this okay?

I obviously thought it was because I made it. but would I feel the same about a work that was written doing something similar? probably not. I think that would make me quite uncomfortable in most situations. but there’s something about visual art that makes it slightly different that I have trouble articulating -- something about how the visual often seeks to illustrate parallels or ideas, whereas writing characters as a different religion can fundamentally change who those characters are, the world they inhabit, etc. in a more... invasive?? way. that’s still not quite right, but I genuinely am not sure how to explain what i mean! I hope the general idea comes across. ><

something else to think about is like, what are pieces I find acceptable and why?

what makes the pieces above that reference christian imagery different than this stunning nieyao piece by @cyandemise after klimt’s kiss? (warnings for like, dead bodies and vague body horror) like i ADORE this piece (PLEASE click for fullview it’s worth it for the quality). it’s incredibly beautiful and evocative and very obviously references a piece of european art. I have no problem with it. why? because it isn’t explicitly christian? it’s still deeply entrenched in western canon. klimt certainly made other pieces that were explicit christian references.

another piece I’d like to invite you all to consider is this incredible naruto fanart of sakura and ino beheading sasuke after caravaggio’s judith. (warnings for beheading, blood, etc. you know.) i also adore this piece! i think it’s very good both technically and conceptually. the reference that it makes has a real power when viewed in relation to the roles of the characters in their original story -- seeing the women that sasuke fucked over and treated so disrespectfully collaborating in his demise Says Something. this is also!! an explicitly christian reference made with non-christian japanese characters. is this okay? does it evoke the same discomfort as seeing mdzs characters being drawn with christian iconography? why or why not?

the point is, I don’t think there’s a neat answer, but I do think there are a lot of interesting issues surrounding cultural erasure/hegemony that are raised by this question. i don’t think there are easy resolutions to any of them either, but I think that it’s a good opportunity to reexamine our own discomfort and try and see where it comes from. all emotions are valid but not all are justified etc. so I try to ask, is it fair? do i apply my criticisms and standards equally? why or why not? does it do real harm, or do i just not like it? what makes one work okay and another not?

i’ve felt that there’s a real danger with the kind of like, deep moral scrutiny of recent years in quashing interesting work in the name of fear. this morality tends to be expressed in black and white, good and bad dichotomies that i really do think stymies meaningful conversation and progress. you’ll often see angry takes that boil down to things like, “POC good, queer people good, white people bad, christianity bad” etc. without a serious critical examination of the actual issues at hand. I feel that these are extraordinarily harmful simplifications that can lead to an increased insularity that isn’t necessarily good for anyone. there’s a fine line between asking people to stay in their lane and cultural gatekeeping sometimes, and I think that it’s something we should be mindful of when we’re engaging in conversations about cultural erasure, appropriation etc.

PERHAPS IT IS OBVIOUS that I have no idea where that line falls LMAO since after all that rambling I have given you basically nothing. but! I hope that you found it interesting at least, and that it gives you a bit more material to think on while you figure out where you stand ahaha.

was this just an excuse to show off cool (fan)art i like? maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(ko-fi)

[randomrichards]

I need to get back to get back in the game of writing reviews. To encourage more consistent writing, I decided end each month by writing a list of movies coming out in the next month. The movies I believe have the most potential to be exact. If you’re interested, you can click the film titles to watch the trailer. Keep in mind; just because I said these films have potential doesn’t guarantee they will be good. There has been great trailers for terrible movies. So proceed with caution. SEPTEMBER 1: VICEROY’S HOUSE – Based on the true story of the independence of India and the formation of Pakistan. At the centre of the film is Lord Mountbatten (Downton Abbey’s Hugh Bonneville), the last Viceroy of Britain. Mountbatten and his wife (Gillian Anderson) arrive in India to oversee its transition to independence. But it proves a challenge with disagreements amongst the locals, especially those of different religions. At the centre of the internal conflict is Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal), who finds disapproval in his choice of a significant other. I don’t know if its religious differences or the chaste system, all I know is it has to do with some form of prejudice. This one looks like it will fit the tropes of the “White Savior” film; a film that has the white person solving problems for different races. The problem with these films is that they overlook the contributions of the locals, making it look like they need Caucasians to save the day. It doesn’t help that this film seems to centre around representatives of Britain; the country that violated India’s right to control its own destiny. However, there is hope in co-writer/director Gurinder Chadha, a Kenyan-born Englishwoman who took the world by storm with Bend it Like Beckham. She reteams with her Beckham co-writer Paul Mayeda Berges to tell this story. There’s a good chance she’ll present some bring some perspective as a person of colour. In addition, the film seems to divide itself into different perspectives, specifically Lord Mountbatten, his wife Lady Edwina and Jeet. I suspect Lady Edwina’s storyline will be more interesting than her husband, especially with her being played by the underrated Gillian Anderson. People focus so much on her role as Agent Scully they forget what a great actress she is in period pieces. I’d recommend watching her in The House of Mirth and Bleak House to see what I mean. But most likely, her plotline will pale in comparison to Jeet’s plotline. Here, we see India reclaiming independence form the perspective of the locals. Plus, we see the clash between Hindus, Siekhs and Muslims who lived there, leading to the formation of Pakistan, which in turn resulted in many people being forced out of their own homes. SEPTEMBER 8: HOME AGAIN – After a bad divorce, Alice Kinney (Reese Witherspoon) is forced to take her two daughters and move in with her mother (Candice Bergen). On her 40th birthday, she has a one night stand with Harry (Pico Alexander) a college student in his early twenties. Then, her mother lets Harry and his two friends move in with them. Awkward! To make matters worst, her ex-husband (Michael Sheen) has returned. This romantic comedy certainly has a vibe of Nancy Meyers (What Women Want, It’s Complicated). Its especially notable with that trademark Meyers scene where the romantic interests are caught in an awkward situation. Notable examples are Jack Nicholson catching Diane Keaton naked in Something’s Gotta Give or the laptop scene from It’s Complicated. In this case, it’s Alice’s kids coming home while Harry’s still in her bed. Of course, this similarity may have something to do with Meyers serving as producer with her daughter Haillie Meyers-Shyer serving as writer/director. Is her daughter copying her or will Meyers-Shyer find her own voice? The only way to find out is to watch the movie. IT – Stephen King’s classic horror novel is comes to the big screen. Sure It was made into a cult classic tv movie, but this is the first time It was made for the big screen. On the surface, Derry, Maine seems like your average American town. But within the sewers, a shapeshifting evil takes the form of Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard) to pick off local children. It’s latest victim is Bill’s (Jaeden Lieberher) little brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott). Forming The Loser Gang, Nick and a small group of misfits try to figure out the origins of this monster to stop this monster once and for all. Can they face up to a monster that can take the form of their worst fears? What I love about King’s storytelling is how he uses the supernatural to examine more personal themes. In the case of It, the theme is childhood trauma. Each kid is an outsider in his/her own way, from Bill for his stuttering or Mike (Chose Jacobs) for his skin colour. Each kid is also coping with their own trauma, which Pennywise uses to terrorize the kids. Bill in particular blames himself for his brother’s death, not helped by his parent’s emotional distance from him. Another strength of King is how he incorporates real life horror alongside with the supernatural horror. Kids don’t need to worry about shapeshifting clowns, but they do have to deal with bullies. In this case, the Bower’s Gang, led by the psycholtic Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton). The bullies in King’s worlds are violent sadist, so prepare for some uncomfortable moments. Bowers reveals a theme of how children inherit their parents worst traits. Through his father, he develops sexism, racism and anti-semetism, which leads him to target Mike, Beverly (Sophia Lillis) and Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff). King’s one of those rare writers who can make teens want to read a thousand page book, myself included. But this giant book puts screenwriters in a bad position when it comes to adaptation. Even if the film were three hours, story elements inevitably have to be taken out. It is especially challenging, with the story switching between our heroes as kids and them as adults. This builds a theme of how child trauma affects people in their later years. While this works great for a novel, movies are very strict with story structure. I think writers Cary Fukunaga (Beasts of No Nation), Gary Dauberman (Annabelle) and newcomer Chase Palmer made the right choice by keeping the focus on our heroes as children. There’s a good chance there will be a sequel if this film proves to be a hit. The film does look terrifying. This version in Pennywise especially looks creepy. I noticed in the trailers that his eyes seem to cross away from each other. But I’m going to wait until it comes out to see whether or not it will live up to the novel. REBEL IN THE RYE – Since the late J.D. Salinger won’t let anyone adapt his stories, Hollywood’s went ahead and made a biopic about the notoriously reclusive author. The film focuses on his years as an up and coming writer (played by Nicholas Hoult). He returns from the war suffering from PTSD, with writing serving as his one salvation. So, he takes writing classes, led by the eccentric mentor Whit Burnett (Kevin Spacey). Despite many naysayers and his own self-doubt, J.D. Salinger pulls through, leading to the creation and publication of Catcher in the Rye. Salinger had been burned by a bad documentary, so there’s a lot of weight on this film’s shoulder. For an author known for avoiding clichés, this film seems to follow the usual tropes of the underdog stories, from the eccentric mentor to the endless naysayers doubting his books. What gives me hope for this one is writer/director Danny Strong, whose teamed with Lee Daniels to make the well done The Butler and created the tv sensation Empire. It could still be entertaining. SEPTEMBER 15: BRAD’S STATUS– From Mike White, the writer of School of Rock and the creator of Enlightened brings us this dramedy of a father’s midlife crisis. Brad (Ben Stiller) feels like a failure. While his other friends have their own success, he finds he has nothing to show for his work in nonprofit. He expects a brighter future for his son Troy (Austin Abrams), whose advanced enough to qualify for an Ivy League School. Now is the time for Brad and Troy to tour colleges and see which one’s the best for him. In the process, Brad will get a chance to reunite with the very friends (Michael Sheen, Jemaine Clement and Luke Wilson) who make him feel inferior. Whether it’s a rocker forming a band of prep school students (School of Rock), a former yuppie becoming an elightened activist (Enlightened) or a Latin American masseuse confronting a racist mogul (Beatriz at Dinner), a lesser writer would have made forgettable comedies with these premises. Mike White elevates these premises with complicated characters, memorable dialogue and subversion of tropes. I’m interested in seeing where he goes with this story. It’s interesting to see Ben Stiller taking on more mature comedies. He’s gotten audiences interested with The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and gained some indie cred with We Are Young. Now, he’s in a dramedy about a man’s feeling of insignificance. FIRST, THEY KILLED MY FATHER – Angelina Jolie directs another biopic, this time about a girl who grew up under the reign of Cambodian regime the Khmer Rouge. Based on the autobiography by Loung Ung (who also co-wrote the screenplay), the film centres on Ung (Sareum Srey Moch) as a little girl. She was a happy child with a loving family. And then Khmer Rouge came to town and the Ung were forced out of their home. As you may guess from the title, her father is killed. Then Ung is subjected to dehumanizing conditions as the regime tries to brainwash her into a child soldier. With this in mind, there will be moments the audience will find uncomfortable to watch. Fortunately, Ung was able to escape this horrible life and grew up to become a civil rights activist. As a writer/director, Angelina Jolie is a mixed bag. She hasn’t been successful with neither her directorial debut In the Land of Blood and Honey nor with By the Sea. But she has garnered acclaim with Unbroken. As a result, this film could go either way. MOTHER! – In a remote house, Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) enjoys a tranquil life with her husband (Javier Bardem). Then one night, a mysterious stranger (Ed Harris) comes to their house and the husband lets him stay. Then the stranger’s wife (Michelle Pheiffer) joins them. As more people come around the house, Mother grows more suspicious of her husband. Then she starts noticing strange things around the house, especially a hollow section of the basement wall. The film’s seems to have a Rosemary’s Baby vibe to it, what with the cult-like storyline or the suspicious husband. It doesn’t help that the film is called Mother. Knowing this is written and directed by Darren Aronovsky (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan), the film is guaranteed to get weird. SEPTEMBER 22: BATTLE OF THE SEXES – From Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, the Oscar-Nominated director team behin Little Miss Sunshine and Ruby Sparks comes this biopic of the unforgettable tennis match. Despite Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) rising as a major tennis star, women weren’t taken seriously in the game, or any sport. It really comes to a head when middle aged has-been and serial hustler Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell) challenges any woman to beat him in a match. At first, Billie Jean doesn’t want to feed this troll, but as he takes the misogyny up to 11, she finally challenges him to a one on one. Their battle came to be known as the Battle of the Sexes. I remember watching a documentary of Billie Jean King on PBS and it really goes into detail of the cringe inducing sexism women tennis players had to deal with back then. What was also clear from the documentary was how much of a self-parody Bobby Riggs was. It’s hard to tell whether he actually believed what he was spewing or if he was just playing it up for the cameras. Either way, you don’t know whether to laugh or cringe. Carell is clearly having a ball with his performance, bringing out how cartoony Riggs was. Stone also looks like she may have another Oscar nomination, blending into the role of King. KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE – “Manners maketh man.” Eggsy (Taron Egerton) has come a long way, going from a gang member from the England’s underbelly to a classy secret agent of the Kingsman. All before he’s even it his mid twenties. Now, Eggsy finds the Kingsman under threat by Poppy (Julianne Moore), a CEO who believe the world would be better off without this agency. She goes as far as destroying their building. Now Eggsy and tech whiz Merlin (Mark Strong) enlist the help of their American equivalent The Statesman, led by Agent Champagne (Jeff Bridges) to stop Poppy from… Whatever she’s got planned. We also see the return of Eggys mentor Agent Hart (Colin Firth). The first Kingsman came out of nowhere to become a sleeper hit, embracing the goofy side of the Bond movies with glorious gratuitous violence over the top villains (that lady assassin with blades for legs) and extreme British politeness. With this film and Kickass, Matthew Vaughn has proved himself the perfect director to adapt Mark Millar’s graphic novels. He’s also excellent a directing action scenes, as you can see in the kickass church slaughter scene (in tune to Lynard Skynard’s Free Bird). This film looks like we’re going to get some glorious action scenes, guaranteed to be as ultraviolent. We got an all star cast, including Halle Berry and Channing Tatum. But it looks like Pedro Pascal (Oberon Martell from Game of Thrones) will steal the show as Agent Whiskey. Just watch him throw that whip. THE LEGO NINJAGO MOVIE – Another addition to the surprisingly well done Lego Movies, this time based on the franchise of ninja legos with big vehicles. A Chinese town finds itself at the mercy of supervillain Garmadon (voiced by Justin Theroux). The only thing stopping them is Ninjago, this universe’s equivalent to Power Rangers. There is one problem; Garmadon’s the father of Ninjago member Lloyd (Dave Franco). Everyone knows that fact, which has made Lloyd an outcast. With the help of his Sensei Wu (Jackie Chan) and his team Kai (Michael Pena), Jay (Kumail Nanjiani), Zane (Zach Woods), Nya (Abbi Jacobson) and Cole (Fred Armisen), Lloyd seeks the secrets of his father’s past. It would be easy if the giant monster known as Meowthra wasn’t unleashed on the town. When the Lego Movie was released in theatres, it blew everyone away with its quality storytelling and excellent animation. What made it special was how it subverted the tropes of the “chosen one” storyline while satirizing unkempt capitalism. Then along came the Lego Batman Movie, which deconstructed the mythology of the caped crusader. This begs the questions; will The Lego Ninjago Movie maintain this trend and if so, what will it subvert? What does stand out is the animation and design. The Lego movies have an animation style resembling stop-motion animation and this film is no different. The one notable difference is Meowthra, whose played by a live action cat. As for the design, Garmadon is a standout. Never have I seen a Lego character with two torsos, which gives the character an insect look to it. Plus, Garmadon is an awesome name for a villain. What I’m most curious about is the fight scenes. The film recruited Jackie Chan’s stunt team to choreography the fights. Judging by the clip of a ninjago fighting some ninjas with a fridge while holding a baby, it looks like there will be some funny fight scenes. STRONGER – Based on a true story, this biopic showcases the struggles and triumph of Jeff Bauman, a survivor of the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. Before that fateful day, Bauman (Jake Gyllenhaal) was an ordinary Costco employee. When his girlfriend Erin (Tatiana Maslany)Â ran that marathon, the most he was expecting was her seeing him with the sign. But his life changed it that explosion. He survived, but lost his legs in that explosion. The film focuses on his struggle to walk again, with the support if his love Erin. It’s interesting to see director David Gordon Green returning to drama. He’s known for directing comedies like Pineapple Express, but he’s made some amazing dramas including George Washington and Undertow. I hope this brings him back to top form. It certainly seems that way, portraying Boston’s sense of community and strength. VICTORIA & ABDUL – Dame Judi Dench reteams with Philomena director Stephen Frears for this biopic of Queen Victoria’s real life friendship with a young Indian Clerk named Abdul Karim. This is an interesting situation because Dame Dench’s first lead role was as playing Queen Victoria in Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown. It also centres around her majesty’s relationship with a servant. This film seems more lighthearted than the previous film, especially with the mango scene. September 29: AMERICAN MADE– Rarely are biopics as fun as this one seems to be. With Doug Liman directing, American Made is sure to be that fun. Tom Cruise plays Barry Seal, a real life pilot placed under extraordinary circumstances. He finds is ordinary life turned upside down when he’s recruited by the CIA to transport firearms from Central America. This would be enough for an average biopic, but Seal took it a step further by transporting drugs from the Medellin cartel. This are sure go get crazy from here. MARK FELT – THE MAN WHO BROUGHT DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE – “Follow the Money.” These three little words helped exposed Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate Scandal, leading to his resignation. Anyone who either watched All the President’s Men (or read the book), you’d recognize these words came from Deep Throat, a mysterious secret agent who offered this advice to world-renowned journalist Bob Woodward. Deep Throat’s identity wasn’t revealed until decades later, when Mark Felt revealed his true identity. Now we finally get to know the man who helped expose the Nixon’s disgraceful actions. For 30 years, FBI Agent Felt (Liam Neeson) has worked with integrity and respect, earning the admiration of fellow agents and president Richard Nixon. But then the 5 men are caught breaking into the Watergate hotel. Felt starts finding opposition in his investigation into the crime, raising his suspicions. To maintain his principles, he has no choice but to violate regulations by revealing information to journalist Bob Woodward (Julian Morris)