#or going in the other direction and making her into this misogynistic caricature

[ppg-villains-defense-lawyer]

One thing I think that's significant when Sedusa was manipulating the Gangreen Gang vs when she was manipulating the Professor or the Mayor is that it was the only time she didn't use a disguise. She was open about being a villain and, presumably, a seductress (kinda hard to hide when your name is literally Sedusa). And I think that speaks to how well she knows her victims and how to approach them.

The Professor is a pretty clean cut, nerdy guy whose type is similarly clean cut, nerdy women but if not nerdy than at least good. Wholesome. Maybe even kind of introverted, as we see with Ms. Keane. So Sedusa emulated that archetype to a T, pretending to be this sweet, soft spoken woman and literally naming her alter ego Ima Goodlady. With the Mayor, she probably picked up real quick that he already had a crush on his hot secretary, so she just took over Ms. Bellum's identity.

With the Gangreen Gang, she knew that unlike the others, if they knew she was a villain, that that would be a bonus, not a turn off. She knew they were lonely and isolated and craved outside affection and played into that, and knew they'd take her "seductress" reputation as a challenge instead of a deterrent. Basically the classic "bad girl/boy" fantasy where, sure, they use and manipulate other people, but with me they're genuine. I'm the exception to the rule. And because I can get this unloving person to love me, then that means I have value.

[whetstonefires]

Drives me insane the way people act like YZY was just... idk an extention of JFM with no agency of her own who couldn't have, at any time, chosen to just not abuse a child and make her family's lives miserable. Nope the only person who could do anything about this is her husband, she of course has no control over her own actions.

right?? i have definitely seen that. or they just treat it like her actions are based on emotional reactions and thus Valid and also could have been Fixed Easily if the situation were different, but he's some other kind of entity, who doesn't have a meaningful internal life, and can only be evaluated in terms of what use he is to other people.

i feel like a lot of people are trying to react against misogyny here and correct for it by going the opposite direction, but the problem is 1) the framework where the husband of a domineering wife is unpersoned is, in fact, itself a very sexist cultural narrative that's definitely surfacing here and 2) stan girlboss only gets you so far, as anti-misogynist ethos.

also, frankly, abusive people tend to have a narrative about how specific stressors are the cause of their actions, and thus other people are responsible for what they did, due to creating that situation, which.

it's tough irl sometimes when you get a story about someone lashing out due to A Stress, because people sure do put each other in situations. you often have to accept that blame can't be usefully apportioned. and to an extent these fairly minor characters do have enough complexity that a bit of that applies, which is why it's so annoying to see them caricatured.

but yu ziyuan does in fact have lots of opportunities to not Make Things Worse and demonstrates a habit of casual unkindness, while Jiang Fengmian spends a lot of time appeasing her. so i feel a kind of a way about signing onto her implied narrative about their relationship.

[farginen]

it's wild to me when fanon depicts riza as angry or resentful towards roy specifically. of course she feels angry and resentful but not at him, that makes no sense. if she felt betrayed by him specifically she wouldn't have gone on to follow him and be his main co-conspirator, she wouldn't believe in him and his cause.

all the opposite, it's because she understands that all the hurt and anger that came from the war and the sense of betrayal from seeing what was done with her father's research is and should be directed towards the government and not roy specifically. that would be missing the wood for the trees.

it would also be very hypocritical of her. his good intentions and naivety were taken advantage of as much as hers. and that's kind of the point, that's why they understand each other on such a fundamental level to the point where they grow co-dependent on each other.

a 20 year old fandom should know better than thinking female characters are better or "more feminist" if they become one dimensional caricatures. like, no sorry but riza doesn't hate feminine things, she doesn't secretly wants to be a man (specially when this hc is used to make ro/yai "better" because people still genuinely think women are gross), she doesn't hate every man in her life specially not the one she's in a life long relationship with. i promise y'all women are just regular human beings.

and all thinly veiled misogynistic bad takes disguised as progressive aside, it's just a piss poor interpretation of her character and her motivations. we see her in canon say more than once that she is going to follow roy into hell and into the grave, she understands him and supports him to the very end. why the ever loving fuck would she do that if she thought he was solely responsible for the harm and damage that flame alchemy caused?

the whole thing about these two characters is that they understand while they have a level of personal responsibility for what they did the bigger flaw and what needs to be changed is the actual governmental system. in fact, their main character arc is going from putting way too much responsibility on themselves to understanding that they never truly had an option to begin with as they learn about the homunculi's plans.

i don't know. there's no punchline to this post. i'm just a little tired of reading bad takes but also coming to terms with the fact internet people at large are completely incapable of grasping nuance.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Would you mind elaborating on Don't Worry Darling 👀?

Hi!

I wish I could properly elaborate on that movie, because I have been thinking about it quite a bit, but I still get the sensation that there's some idea about it that is escaping me.

Tumblr mostly focused on the batshit stuff going behind the scenes, and honestly, who wouldn't, and clearly a huge part of the mess the end product is is tied to that.

The things I mentioned in my review of Glass Onion have to do with

DWD feels like a clumsy rehash of The Stepford Wives. Which is an extremely well known novel with two very well known adaptations. But you get this sense that DWD is pretending that TSW doesn't exist. Both Knives Out and Glass Onion treat the works they are referencing (mainly tropes from Agatha Christie) with... referentiality. More "Rich people ;) all shut up together on a trip of pleasure ;) and there's murder ;)" and less "Rich people??? all shut up together on a trip of pleasure???? and there's a murder??? in the mediterranean??? exciting and new!" Even the part that is supposedly new is, apparently, accidental: when Shia Lebouf was on the role of Jack, he was some sort of creepy janitor kidnapping a woman he didn't know. When Harry Styles took on the role, apparently for optics, they went for the route of his being her husband and his misogynistic behavior, benign-y in his concern for her being overworked. Which leads to

The villains in the story: Jake and the boss that is a thinly veiled attack on Jordan Peterson.

(rather 2.1, I really hate the new post editor) I honestly think that there is room for a TSW-adjacent story that addresses the specific subtype of "benign" control-objectification that this movie accidentally stumbles upon; the men in TSW love their wives as an extension of themselves; love them as something that is useful, and so they don't feel a loss at all in turning them into robots. But there's a brand of it that presents itself as being meant for the good of women; a stay at home mom is a woman liberated from the shackles of capitalism, protected from stress and harrassment, liberated from having to make hard decisions because she is subordinated to her husband, finally in her natural environment. It is a view I have seen more and more in Catholic circles, but that feels anthropologically Lutheran in a way. Catholicism has a long history of nuns and sisters making their own way in the world, organizing and ruling themselves, not having biological children, managing businesses (ultimately a monastery that makes food, candles, vestments, drinks, etc, requires being managed with an eye to its continued existence) and professions (as teachers and nurses and such). I digress. I think there's a general tendency to objectification in romantic relationships, that because it isn't sexual in nature, often goes under radar; I remember reading this article about how people, in dating, most often search for a person who can make them happy (that is, someone that fills a checklist of characteristics, like a phone or another product) rather than searching for a person they can be happy with (someone that shares the same basic ideals and life goals. And I think a whole lot of the time the "homestead 1950s nuclear family with a stay at home mom and a bunch of kids" mishmash fantasy is an exaggerated version of that. "I want a wife that will stay at home, I want 12 children, I want... I want... I want... specs for a product and a plan that spins around the self. That¡s interesting to explore! But that's not something DWD does anything with.

(2.2) Then there's the Jordan Peterson villain. I haven't ever really sat down to make my own firm opinion on him. My gut feeling is that he's overrated in both directions. Beyond the caricature portrayal of a guy that is EVIL just because HE HATES WOMEN and ALWAYS SPEAKS IN GIBBERISH... it's a wasted opportunity for talking about cults, why some people create cults and why others fall into cults. The movie attempts to make of Project Victory a cult, but has a terrible understanding of what cults are and how they work (as a side note, I have seen people say that the job Jack gets is inside Project Victory, which tells me some people have a hard time understanding how MLMs work). More often than not, cults are fascist-y, and I don't mean this in ideological terms, because fascism is fundamentally action and not ideology. A fascist movement is first a charismatic leader and a goal, and then an ideology is formed to theoretically support the former. Which usually means that most charismatic leaders of cults are not believers in the cause; the cult is an excuse to gain money, power over others, and/or satisfy the leader's appetites (that's why sexual abuse is so so common in cults). Cults prey on people that are isolated, emotionally starved, and idealistic, people that want to bring change or do good and are willingly to put a lot of volunteer work on it. The cult establishes heavier mechanisms of isolation, control, group aesthetics and a them-vs-us mentality that hinders questioning and raises a barrier for leaving to disillusioned members (public perception of people in cults as bad people that deserve bad things and no help does also greatly contribute to that goal). The big villain of DWD is not realistic that way, but if he were, the movie would have been radically better. Show that the man is in it for the money and the power trip and the sex, and that he is extremely cunning and charismatic and that's how he can get away with it. Have the heroine be able to look through his facade. Built in a redemption arc for Jake, if you want, based on the realization that he's being used. Or not, if you don't want to. You can have a failed attempt at making a resistance (resistances don't work in cults because the structure itself is designed to prevent them from succeeding). Show the difficulties the heroine faces in leaving the cult. Attempt to showcase what kind of people and why would fall for a cult like this one.

Man is an evil evildoer because he's evil and the men that follow him are evil because they are evil and bad can be satisfying if all you want is dehumanize and make a fantasy of dismissing the threat your ideological enemies pose, but it's bad storytelling, and a fundamentally lazy and unthinking storytelling.

[synonymouswithanonymous]

about art

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/copyright-reform-questions-and-answers#:~:text=They make sure that all,%2C caricature%2C parody and pastiche.

"The Directive allows users to use content freely for purposes of quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche."

A pastiche is a work of visual art, literature, theatre, music, or architecture that imitates the style or character of the work of one or more other artists. Unlike parody, pastiche pays homage to the work it imitates, rather than mocking it.-wiki

"Pastiche is one of the newer harmonized user rights in EU copyright law. The exception for caricature, parody and pastiche was made mandatory as part of Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD) in 2019." https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/03/13/the-pastiche-in-copyright-law-towards-a-european-right-to-remix/

For the USA the laws are slightly more relaxed. So to demonstrate the law in practical usage terms I will use Weird Al Y as an example.

https://www.stadleriplaw.com/blog/weirdal

"Although Weird Al's re-recordings are near melodic copies of the original recordings, they do not violate the copyright owner's rights. Since "Weird Al's" songs meet the required aspects to define a parody, he is not required by law to get permission. He also does not need to pay the creator of the original song."

And although weird al cites sources, in the USA he's not legally required to do so. Nor in Europe.

I kept seeing this argument, got tired of zero people actually putting up the laws, so researched, and here it is. Now the USA laws do seem a bit unfair to the original artist, same music but different lyrics, but the first artist isn't paid. I thought for sure he would be paying royalties at least. But nope. But I don't make the laws. The actress in question over this subject hasn't violated any laws in Europe or the USA. I think continued claims of theft are libelous and wrong. I mean get over it and let it go. It just makes me think The only reason this is used against her is bc of who she's dating. Misogyny is real, and just another excuse they use to be misogynistic towards this woman. It is bullying and libel. They've also come after her for so many other things, her hair, weight, eyebrows, feet, etc. So it shouldn't surprise me that stories are made up about her, but it does. And it's all swallowed down so happily bc some people are so thirsty for any excuse to hate.

The law is the law. Art is art, if people are inspired by it so be it. Let artists be artists. Choose to see the good in people and their intentions without judgement, stop looking for the bad.

Or that's all you will find. I also don't think it's right to try to trash someone's reputation online and call them a thief when they are not. Or call them a plagiarist when they are not. She's an actress that went to an arts based school, I'm sure she's aware of all the artistic lines she can and cannot cross.

So if you've ever been inspired by art and wanted to do something similar, or use elements from that piece, you are in the clear. The above laws and Fair Use say it's ok to get your art on!

If you've ever made a GIF, meme, clip splice, fanfiction, YouTube video, tiktok, musical, moodboard, collages, or downloaded a pic and shared it, under fair use/pastiche/parody laws, you're in the clear too. Keep on rocking content!

Fair use laws are meant to protect creativity, not stifle it.

[ambivalentman]

THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998)

In 2019, Peter Farrelly crossed the Dolby Theater stage at the 91st Academy Awards to proudly accept three Oscars, including Best Picture, for his drama Green Book. For any director, these Oscars would be a crowning achievement. To Farrelly, this was also an induction into the Hollywood fraternity—that rarefied group from whom he and his brother, Bobby, had long stood apart. The Farrelly brothers had at one time been maverick comedy filmmakers whose brand was just the right combination of offensive humor and heart. As Farrelly raised his Oscars for the crowd, he was no longer the goofy outsider who directed gross comedies. He was an important filmmaker.

Be that as it may, Green Book—despite the awards coronation—was every bit the offensive relative to Peter’s work with Bobby. The film had generated tons of criticism for its handling of race, leaning heavily on cultural stereotypes for its humor and pathos, and presented a morally superior view of white privilege while possibly misrepresenting the only nuanced Black character in the film. These criticisms dominated the Monday Morning Oscar Quarterbacking on podcasts and Twitter threads, putting just a little bit of tarnish on the filmmaker’s new trophies.

Criticism and controversy are not new to either Peter or Bobby Farrelly. Since their directorial debut in 1994 with Dumb & Dumber, they have walked the tightrope of all offensive comedians. As Roger Ebert said about them, their movies are “crude, vulgar, cruel, insensitive, scatological, perverse, and politically incorrect.” Gene Siskel made sure he added “gross and raunchy” to that list. They meant this as a compliment. People died watching Jeff Daniels experience exploding diarrhea in Dumb & Dumber, Woody Harrelson share a post-coital cig with his grotesque landlord in Kingpin, and Jason Alexander wag his tail in Shallow Hal. Few would call any of their oeuvre particularly deep—and should probably laugh at the pretense of referring to their filmography as an oeuvre.

The most controversial, and arguably most popular, film of the Farrelly’s career is 1998’s There’s Something About Mary. This one focuses on a generic loser named Ted (Ben Stiller), who holds a flame for his teenage crush, Mary (Cameron Diaz). Because Ted believes Mary may hold the key to his happiness, he hires a private dick named Healy (Matt Dillon) to find out where she is. Healy falls under Mary’s spell and leverages his influence to keep Ted away. As played by Diaz, Mary is a “smart girl who has a lot going for her”; however, Mary isn’t particularly observant and awfully naïve. Every man she encounters falls for her, and she has a litany of stalkers who will do anything to possess her.

Based on description alone, There’s Something About Mary presents as a harmless rom-com, but the Farrelly’s bring their edgy style to the film. This movie is packed with indecent images. Ted’s “Franks N’ Beans.” Mary’s “hair gel.” The fish hook. Magda’s makeout session with her dog, Puffy. Woogie’s face. The gross stuff is what it is, but the material that sticks are the stalking and how the depiction of Down’s Syndrome impacted perception of those with mental handicaps. Reviewing this film through the lens of 2021 causes even more cringing than it did in 1998.

You could tell that even in 1998 there was a narrative building around this movie. In a press interview, Ben Stiller said, “I wouldn’t necessarily associate this film with deep social commentary. I think it’s a sweet movie that you can go out and laugh at.” Diaz added, “With this film, I know that [the Farrelly Brothers] wanted to have characters—people—that were important to the audience. They wanted a love story that people could really get involved with, as well as have the comedy.” She also said more recently in 2018, “Peter and Bobby have such heart in all of their movies. No matter how shocking the comedy is, there is so much that is inherently good about the story and the characters that really appeals to people and it makes the laughter at the jokes a little more forgivable.”

From the get-go, everyone on the project knew somethings were going to be potentially problematic. Studio brass expressed some concern over the decision to make an R-rated comedy. The PG-13 rating had squeezed out the R-rated comedy to the point that very few were being made. Movies like Friday (1995), Flirting with Disaster (1996), Private Parts (1997) and The Big Lebowski (1998) all had pretty limited audiences. No one was convinced an adult comedy could even make a buck, let alone entertain. Besides, the Farrelly’s previous film, Kingpin (1996), had bombed, so could they even be the duo to make a lucrative R-rated comedy.

On the set, there were concerns, too. Diaz worried about whether the infamous “hair gel” scene was a bridge too far, and might possibly be the ruin of her rising career. During the scene where Puffy falls out a window, Bobby Farrelly needed to get the right reaction from Diaz and co-star Lin Shaye, so he dropped his pants and wiggled his ass. It wasn’t the first time the director had done this, either on or off set. According to Peter, Bobby liked doing this; it would one day get him in some trouble. And the production was surprised when Plantation City Hall, whose veneer was redressed to become the exterior of Ted and Mary’s high school, asked to have their name removed from the film’s credits because they didn’t want to be associated with anything “lewd and offensive.” The studio was also worried about the decision to include a close up of Ted’s “franks n’ beans” after he catches them in his zipper. That shot was got by creating a 4’x2’ prop, and inserted just in case it needed to be cut out of the film. Fox chairman, Peter Chernin, after seeing a test screening, told the Farrelly’s, “It’s perfectly reprehensible; don’t touch a thing.”

There were also questions about the portrayal of Warren, Mary’s brother, who has Down’s Syndrome. Peter Farrelly said, “Whenever you did [write disabled characters] back then, it seems the studio was, ‘No, no, no! People are uncomfortable’ [with disabilities]. And I’m like, ‘No, they’re not. That’s bull. People have disabilities, so let’s see them.” Warren was based on a next-door neighbor of the Farrelly’s to whom the family was close. The young man is also cast in the film as one of Mary’s students. It also seems casting may have been one way to circumvent controversy surrounding Warren. Initially, it looked like the part would go to Chris Farley, who was hot at that time for his work on Saturday Night Live. However, Farley’s energy may have contributed to seeing Warren as a caricature, so the production went with W. Earl Brown. Brown wanted to play Warren as a real person, not a cartoon. He said in a 2018 interview with Variety, “I just feel instinctively, ‘If you goof this, if you play it broad and you try to be funny, it ain’t going to be funny. The audience is going to hate you because you are mocking somebody with a handicap,’” This didn’t stop anyone from seeing the film as a possible Pandora’s box of disabled stereotypes and disparagement humor.

The other controversy surrounding this movie has become more pronounced in the social media age. Does There’s Something About Mary normalize sexual predation and stalking? Critic Rachel Verona Cote said, “Humor that takes stalking seriously requires nimbleness and nuance that the Farrelly brothers lack; instead, they trade in crude jokes underpinned by the structurally misogynist ‘boys will be boys’ mythos.” There may be something to this criticism. In 2016, a University of Michigan research study, entitled “I Did It Because I Never Stopped Loving You,” found that women are often more tolerant of aggressive male behavior because of the normalizing of such behavior in romantic comedies. There’s Something About Mary was one of the films cited in the report, which suggested that the film’s excusal of male aggression supported “stalking myths,” which were defined as “false or exaggerated beliefs about stalking that minimize its seriousness.” Findings like these also support research that has been going on since Harriet Martineau began pioneering the field of gender conflict. The Martineau Theory suggested that exposure to disparaging humor towards a particular group often has the result of inducing tolerance towards prejudice directed at that group. Martineau’s work focused on gender theory, but could just as easily be applied to any group.

Obviously, there is no truly right or wrong answer in regards to There’s Something About Mary, but as you watch the film, it seems a new lens may need to be applied. Even as we laugh at the cringeworthy humor of the Farrelly Brothers, what is their target? What behaviors are they excusing? Ben Stiller suggested there was no deeper political meaning to the film, but does that deeper meaning have to be intended to be valid? As There’s Something About Mary nears its 25th anniversary, we now look at it with more nuance, also with the realization that Peter Farrelly’s Oscar victories for Green Book suggest his once outsider take on comedy and culture is now firmly at the center.

[lastsonlost]

Say that three times fast....

No, misogyny is not to blame for the box-office woes of the new Charlie’s Angels film.

The new film reboot of the Charlie’s Angels franchise will be released in the UK next week. It is written, directed and produced by Elizabeth Banks, who also stars in it as the wisecracking Bosley. Maybe she did the catering, too.

Banks is a genuinely funny actor, and the Pitch Perfect movies she produced are highly enjoyable. But I was not excited to see Charlie’s Angels, and that seems to reflect the wider sentiment: the film bombed at the US box office. It cost $48million to make but only brought in $8.6million on its opening weekend.

There are several competing theories as to why this has happened. Some cite the film’s lack of star power. Others point to a ‘reboot fatigue’ among cinemagoers. Some of the more feminist reviewers have aired their disappointment that, while the film is a more feminist take on Charlie’s Angels, it doesn’t do enough to shake the ‘jiggle television’ of the original show and the two early 2000s films.

But the main factor here seems to be a lack of public interest in ‘feminist’ remakes. Recent films like Charlie’s Angels, Ocean’s 8 and Ghostbusters, all sold purely off the back of their female-led cast and (in some cases) female-led crew, failed to attract an audience. And some have inevitably claimed this is because we live in an inherently misogynistic society.

Indeed Banks had this excuse lined up before her film was even released. ‘If this movie doesn’t make money, it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies’, she said in an interview. She even had an answer for why��Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, which both have female lead characters, were major hits:

[Men will] go and see a comic-book movie… because that’s a male genre. So even though those are movies about women, they put them in the context of feeding the larger comic-book world. Yes, you’re watching a Wonder Woman movie, but we’re setting up three other characters or we’re setting up Justice League.’

Whether or not men are as simpleminded as Banks suggests, her explanation doesn’t account for why her film’s target audience – young, empowered women – have also stayed away from the cinema.

The more mundane truth here is that the whole concept of this feminist Charlie’s Angels reboot is fundamentally flawed. It wants to keep the silliness of the original TV show and be a modern high-tech spy thriller, and it wants to make feminist points along the way. Inevitably, the po-faced feminism of the film sucks the life out of the silliness and the thrills.

The 2000s Charlie’s Angels movies worked because the stars – Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu – made fun of themselves. They knew they were playing ludicrous characters and embraced this. The new Angels, by contrast, are humourless and woke – adept at lecturing, sneering and putting down unreconstructed men. And no one – male or female – wants to be condescended to during their afternoon out at the cinema.

This points to an underlying problem with today’s feminist identity politics. It tries to understand social relations almost solely through the prism of gender relations. And when this theoretical model oversteps its boundaries and starts to inform how culture is made, it creates untruthful, uninvolving and banal art.

The feminist call for more female representation in cinema has created a genre of what could be called the ‘female-voice’ film. The same could be said for films which are said to give ‘voice’ to racial and sexual minorities. To translate from the cultural-studies jargon, ‘voice’ here refers to films in which a particular identity group is front and centre. They star in these films and usually take a larger share of the writing, directing and production credits. These films are supposedly informed by the experiences of these identity groups, in contrast to all other films which, by default, are said to reflect a ‘white’, ‘male’ and ‘heteronormative’ experience.

In this schema, individuals are reduced to an identity – one based not on their totality, but on only a small part of who they are. This inevitably makes for shallow, two-dimensional films, in which identity, rather than busting ghosts or carrying out heists, drives the plot and motivates the characters. Reducing people to identities turns fictional characters into unrelatable caricatures.

Even films like the all-female Ghostbusters reboot – in which the individual performances are human, engaging and often hilarious – are in the end nullified by this reductionist framework. These films also tend to feature lots of clunking expositional dialogue, which expresses the filmmaker’s agenda rather than the characters’ inner life. People instantly recognise this as bad storytelling.

This is why people stay away from films that pander to ‘voices’, and why so many men and women do not enjoy self-consciously ‘female’ films. They present diminished caricatures of women, men and human relations, which people experience as untrue. Ideological point-scoring makes for terrible cinema.

Maren Thom is a writer based in London.

[palmviolet]

hii! may i just ask you why/how the mom steve meme is sexist?

thank you for asking so politely!! i’m happy to talk about it (and i think it ought to be discussed).

okay, so let’s talk about mom steve.

steve is a teenage boy. the foundations of his character were set as the stereotypical 80s high school douche, a kind of foil to jonathan, whom nancy was always ultimately going to choose over steve - regardless of how steve’s character developed later on. then the duffers met joe keery, and decided to take his character in a different direction. he starts the series as your high school bully, though the take on the trope is more nuanced than it was originally, but by the end of season 1 he’s starting to redeem himself.

this is all good. it’s more interesting, actually, than the more typical archetype fulfilled by billy in season 2. the duffers are all about nuance.

so let’s go to joyce in season 1. joyce embodies another archetype - the stricken, frantic, hysterical mother. the narrative could easily dismiss her, but instead a large proportion of the series is from her perspective: we see her use of the christmas lights not as a delusion but as a rational, logical experiment. we as the audience are desperate for the others to believe her. so here, too, there is another subversion of a trope - and when her beliefs are validated by hopper, literally part of the institutions that dismiss her (he is ex-army, the police chief, a man), she is still a fundamental part of uncovering the mystery and finding her son. he doesn’t take over. without her, they never would have succeeded.

all this she does in aid of her child. she gets called crazy, delusional, a mess even by her own son, jonathan - but she doesn’t give up.

to summarise so far - in season 1, both steve and joyce subvert tropes. joyce overcomes institutional sexism by her strength and belief as a mother.

onto season 2. the crisis - the monster du jour - isn’t so glaring this time, but creeps up on the narrative. will is present and for a while joyce can be more relaxed. she has a boyfriend now - bob - and they seem happy together. we learn than she and hopper went to high school together. we discover she - and the other characters - are still heavily traumatised by the events of season 1. nancy is too, and she’s struggling in her relationship with steve. but instead of framing their breakup around her trauma, around how they simply don’t work together anymore because they’ve both grown to be different people, the show seems to favour steve and make it less than amicable. we are made to feel sorry for steve, poor, dumped steve, instead of placing the two on equal ground.

@jancys-blue-bayou made a good post about this a while back, when the teaser for s3 came out. in it they discuss steve in season 2; ‘they began […] by making him “a loser” through his relationship with nancy ending in a way that humiliated his frail male ego and then king steve losing his crown to billy, so he’s not popular in high school now. just like jonathan’s never been.’ essentially they begin to shape steve into what jonathan used to be - a loner, an outcast, someone the audience should sympathise with. the kind of character stranger things has always been about.

meanwhile the whole mess with will begins, and joyce has no other focus once again - her relationship with bob falls by the wayside, unless he becomes relevant to will again (calling him up about the tape, inviting him in to help them solve the map). within the narrative this is perfectly understandable - her son is going through something horrible, again, of course he’s all she cares about - but we lose any sense of joyce the person, again. she’s just joyce the mom. contrast this with hopper, who is treated very differently by the narrative. he has multiple plotlines, emotional beats. as @nancykali puts it, ‘the duffers didn’t want to deal with their only main adult female character having a storyline outside of will and hopper. oh but wait - hopper could get his storylines as joyce’s love interest, a support for will, and an adoptive parent to el though, couldn’t he? that’s unbalanced and sexist storytelling.’

so, to recap - while joyce is reduced down to just the Mom (which was fine in s1, because of the urgency of the situation and the fact that this was a new show, none of the characters had been developed much yet, but starts to become alarming in s2) which by default makes her less relatable, less of a figure for the audience to connect with, steve is deliberately cast as a multi-faceted, sympathetic character. joyce’s ‘story is no less than hopper’s but it’s treated as lesser by the canon because she’s a woman and her role is Mother First, Human Second. but if a man decides to be a father he deserves to be lauded, where for a mother to adopt a little girl, that’s too predictable to some people.’ this last bit is in reference to hopper, but it works for steve too. steve giving attention to the kids and acting protective over them for what amounts to one afternoon is celebrated far beyond anything joyce has done, because it’s breaking type. and sure, that can be a good thing. when the series first came out i really enjoyed babysitter steve.

but that’s all he is. a babysitter. joyce is a real mom, and yet because she’s a woman, that’s her job description. but because steve is a teenage boy, who used to be something of a bully, he gets praise far beyond what he might deserve.

being a mother is what drives joyce’s narrative arc - and that’s wrong, and misogynistic, because she deserves to be fleshed out and given other plotlines too - and her character would literally have nothing without it. it feels like a slap in the face, then, for it to be steve who is labelled ‘best mom’ - steve, who has multiple facets to his character, steve who is a teenage boy, steve who is affluent and male and up until recently embodied the trope of 80s highschool bully. joyce is quite literally a single mom and we are shown that she often struggles to make ends meet. she’s had nervous breakdowns in the past, she works weekends and nights and holidays, she relies on jonathan almost as a co-parent to will. she’s a flawed mother, but she does her goddamn best because her life is hard - and despite all this she finds time to actively know and engage with her sons’ interests, to play with them, to have jokes with them. this is being a good mom.

‘mom steve’ is perpetuated by fandom, but it is rooted in the show. take the first s3 teaser: ‘they have him work a menial job that has fans of the mom meme write stuff like “steve got a minimum wage job to take care of his five kids”’. both joyce and jonathan work/have worked menial jobs to support their family, possibly both at minimum wage - while steve is very notably and explicitly affluent. in fact if any character in the show who is not a mom deserves to be called one, it’s jonathan, who is in all but name a co-parent to will. i think @jancys-blue-bayou and @nervousalligator have written on this in the past.

however, applying the term ‘mom’ to these male characters at all is sexist by itself. it promotes the idea that only women can be caregivers - that parenting is only the duty of the mother, and is nothing to do with men. this is highly misogynistic, links back to age-old gender roles that it’s high time were erased, and yet the meme perpetuates them. steve is male. if anything, he should be called ‘dad steve’ - but people won’t run with that, because it’s all a joke. because motherhood is a joke. joyce is defined by being a mother and yet she gets no recognition for it, while steve is not a mother, has multiple plotlines and facets beyond that meme, and yet is lauded as the best mom of all.

it’s actually a manner of woobifying him. he’s not a perfect character, not of them are, yet this ‘mom’ caricature somehow strives to paint him as such. it’s the same with hopper, in his parenting of el - his obvious flaws are dismissed across the fandom because of sweet father-daughter moments. i love hopper as a character, and i can appreciate steve, but often people simply don’t understand them. as @paris-geller-was-straightwashed puts it, ‘y’all will soften the males of this show all the way down until they literally don’t have any sharp edges anymore.’ the male characters become perfect, can do no wrong, while the women are criticised for their every mistake (see the treatment of nancy post s2).

it’s a cycle. the show began it, when they tried to promote steve the best way they knew how - by shaping him into a prototype of jonathan, except without any flaws and much, much richer - and the fandom picked it up and ran with it. this led to fanservice, with the scoops ahoy teaser and the stranger things twitter (don’t think i’ve forgiven the mothers’ day tweet). with any luck the fandom will wise up a little or the creators will stop pandering to them, but we’ll have to see the outcome of s3. regardless, it’s time to stop calling steve a mom. if anything, he’s a big brother to dustin - yet another role that was somewhat snatched from jonathan (see the scene at the end of s1 when jonathan comes down to mike’s basement at the end of the d&d game - he’s a big brother figure to all the boys). people call steve a mom because he gave dustin advice - horrible, sexist advice (‘treat ‘em like you don’t care’) - and put a tea towel on his shoulder. that’s it.

so maybe appreciate steve as his own character, a babysitter at most, because you’re doing him a disservice by woobifying him and calling him a ‘mom’. appreciate joyce, who is an actual mom, and maybe start lobbying the duffers for more development for their female characters rather than for more sexist memes.

TLDR; joyce is defined by being a mother and yet she gets no recognition for it, while steve is not a mother, has multiple plotlines and facets beyond that meme, and yet is lauded as the best mom of all.

[hardtoswallowtruthpills]

Jenna Marbles Didn't "Do Blackface"; Here is How Cancel-Culture Broke the Internet’s Adult in the Room

On May 31, 2020 Jenna Marbles, a well known Youtuber with about 20.3 million subscribers tweeted out in regards to African American’s rights to life and the Black Lives Matter movement. Marbles stated that “This is not a political issue, this is a human rights issue.This is systematic racism and oppression at the hands of law enforcement in our country. We want justice and we want change.  It shouldn't have happened once and it should never happen again.This is not a discussion”. Almost a month later, though, Jenna Marbles released a video on her Youtube channel vaguely titled “A Message”. Her subscribers would come to find when watching this video that Marbles was officially quitting YouTube over messages she had received asking her to address videos that were made in 2011 and 2012 for their “racist” content, as well as asking her to apologize. Marbles obliged, officially ‘canceling herself’ as some have said. Most of her fans are concerned about the break that Jenna Marbles is taking from the internet. Most even begging her not to leave Youtube permanently, but, there are bigger issues within this whole debacle that are being overlooked.

 Mainly, how did we get to the point where the current generation (which yours truly is a part of by the way) is so sensitive, that we harassed, intimidated, and bullied potentially one of the biggest voices on Youtube for the Black Lives Matter movement off the internet for an indefinite amount of time?

Don’t worry dear reader, you probably are wondering what could have possibly caused such a thing. Well, as most media outlets will tell you, Jenna Marbles quit youtube, and in turn the internet, because of accusations of her “doing blackface”. Surface level this sounds bad, doesn't it? It almost seems like her getting driven off the internet by a vocal minority almost seems expected, but remember, this is only surface deep. There's a whole bunch of stuff under the surface that needs to be unpacked, stuff that exposes why those who went after Marbles are, to put it lightly, hypocritical, or if you want it put bluntly, full of it. All of them though, have gone too far. Dear reader, this is a prime example of how the cancel-culture we have created is toxic slacktivism that gets us nowhere, and diminishes real world issues, and inevitably has broken one of the internet adults in the room.

The video that Marbles addressed in her apology that brought on the blackface accusations was one in which she did an “impression” of Niki Minaj. Here's the thing though...she was overly tanned at the time, filming in low lighting, and was wearing a cheap, acrylic, neon pink wig. With all factors combined, it becomes clear that none of this was “blackface” as the slacktivist warriors claim, it was just really bad filming technique. At the end of the video, Marbles even claims that it was “just a joke and that she loves and respects minaj”. We see in this clip one the wig is off, that Marbles was a spray-tan junkie at the time, which was common for girls in their 20’s about a decade ago.

Marbles also went on to apologize for a rap video she did, once again about a decade ago, for an original song called “Bounce on that Dick”. The rap was about toxic masculinity and the misogyny that toxic masculinity encourages. The lyrics express how men constantly brag about penis size or their attempts to sexualize women is ingrained in society's toxic notions of sexuality and masculinity. In this video Marbles, done up as a stereotypical asian man raps "Hey Ching Chong Wing Wong, shake your King Kong ding dong,". In her apology she admits it was racist and wrong and that she has privated the video because of the hurtful stereotype it portrays. Still though, it is being used against her even after apologizing.

Marbles also goes on to mention some of the other private videos on her channel. Claiming that she herself found most of them to be expressions of the internalized misogyny she held within herself back then. All of the videos she mentions in her apology have been privatized instead of deleted, showing in a way that Marbles is not going to pretend like these things didn’t happen, but she is also actively making sure that the videos cannot offend anyone anymore. 

For context, all of the videos that she discussed were around 8 to 10 years old as of this year. Meaning that in the oldest videos, Jenna Marbles would have been 22. Most 22 year olds at the time made mistakes, Jenna Marbles is not an exception to the rule, especially since the internet was becoming a vast place where anyone and everyone could express their thoughts and opinions. Sadly though, it seems this vocal minority that took it upon themselves to harass Marbles for an apology in the name of social justice think that just because she is a public figure, that at 22 she should’ve seen that in 10 years, this would come back to haunt her. The social justice slacktivists that seem to think they have done good in this world also forgot that in 2010, that was the humor of the time. Jenna was participating in humor that, back before cancel culture was really a thing, was considered harmless. She was doing impressions right along Shane Dawson’s Shanaynay, a Ghetto caricature that frequently appeared in videos on his first channel ShaneDawsonTV, or NigaHiga’s fake infomercials that would sometimes contain Ghetto or Gangster impressons and over the top asian impressions. Jenna was right there in terms of misogynistic or sexist stereotyping becoming a joke with Smosh, which compared a “Just Dance” game character to “A Skinny Ron Jeremy”, or comparing soft McDonald's fries to what the penises of men with erectile dysfunction would look like. Needless to say all of these creators couldn't see a decade into the future. It was acceptable to joke about these things back in the day in terms of Youtube culture. Since everyone in 2020 is now overly sensitive to decades old content, though, it is enough to get a creator “canceled”, even if they have shown significant improvement over those 10 years.

This vocal minority deliberately targeted Marbles, and pulled up videos from her past back up in an attempt to find something, anything problematic with her. Mind you, this is someone who’s most exciting, recent content was hydro-dipping a pair of crocs, acid washing old sweatshirts, and throwing a birthday party for her greyhound, complete with treats for the dog, and a  framed picture of Jerry Sinfeld as a birthday gift. Those who contacted her about her past and demanded an apology are directly responsible for what happened. They can claim it was Jenna’s choice to leave as much as they want, but would Jenna have made this choice if she weren’t harassed and bullied to the point where she felt her very existence on Youtube was hurtful? Would she have walked away if she weren’t scared that anything she could possibly say would inevitably offend someone? Most likely, the answer here is no. Instead of educating, or politely correcting past errors in private direct messages, these people decided it was their god-given right to demand an apology for videos that were made 10 years ago. They know that these videos and mistakes don't reflect the Jenna Marbles we all knew for the past 3 years, the one that actually changed and grew from it all.

These people seem clueless that their crusade for clicks and apologies they can turn around and deny under the guise of “the creator not meaning it” are diminishing every aspect of real-life issues and movements. If this continues the way that it is, if Smosh, or NigaHiga, or Shane Dawson are next in line for the cancel-culture call out machine. If they’re next to be accused of deliberately offending people, and when they apologize being told what their intentions were by internet strangers, who’s going to be there when they need big creators to back up their cause the most? The answer is nobody, nobody with a platform will be there to support them.

These people seeking to call out and cancel big name celebrities and public figures for their “racism” are ultimately going to hurt the Black Lives Matter movement. If anyone, celebrity or everyday citizen were on the fence with their support and they saw the Jenna Marbles fiasco, do you think they would be willing to support these movements? Especially in the case of Jenna MArbles, who openly defended the group before the accusations and cancelling began? They probably would be running for the hills. When we let people get away with being toxic, we are complicit in cancel-culture, If we are calling someone out for something that happened a decade ago, if we feel the need to air out their dirty laundry, without first addressing that the ones doing the aring out may have their own dirty laundry, then we let hypocrites get away with their hypocrisy. If you honestly support the Black Lives Matter movement, you would understand that change comes through education of the self and others, through protest, through showing those in power that we will no longer stand for their oppression of the minority. What does not bring about change is liking comments that harass people for mistakes made a decade ago, by canceling anyone over these mistakes, by driving a woman away from a platform where millions could’ve heard the message that she was trying to spread because of the entitled and toxic personality that these people seem to possess. All of this is driving people away from a social justice movement that is trying to bring about change, and is silencing those who are trying to be heard. Those who participate in this kind of toxic cancel-culture, are making movements like the Black Lives Matter movement an utter joke to those who are trying to understand, or worse, those who like life the way it is, who like their privilege, and want movements like this to be undermined.

In the end, it should be believed that those who called Jenna Marbles out OWE her an apology. Your toxicity drove away a proponent to a movement that could have made a difference. You made a woman who has continually educated herself over the last decade up and leave because you refused to believe that change was possible. These participants also OWE an apology to their closest Black Lives Matter chapter, for they need to understand how much their participation has diminished the message and work of those trying to actually make a difference. Maybe after this experience, they will realize that making a change doesn't happen through cyber-bullying. Perhaps, these people who participated in the cancel-culture that drove away Jenna Marbles will realize that they haven’t done anything to better themselves until they pick up a book from a Black author, or actually take to the streets and march for what should be a basic human right. Besides, maybe marching will also give these people a long-needed lesson on how it feels to have your speech repressed, and how discouraging it is when others won’t listen to what you have to say, just like how they did not listen to all of those apologies they demanded get thrown their way.

For now though, sadly, we get to live with the ramifications of the actions of a few. As long as Jenna is off the internet, there is one less platform bringing the much needed attention to a much needed movement. So, thank you cancel-culture, you silenced someone who has grown and was using their privilege to speak up for the good of those who cannot speak for themselves by claiming they were the very thing they were speaking out against. We all hope you're proud of what you did, that you feel superior for bullying someone. Since you like to cause ramifications like this to come to be, we hope that you ride off this high for a long time, specifically so you leave the rest of those using their platforms and privilege for good alone.

[five-wow]

aaand my 9.18 thoughts! there are many of them. this is the episode with danny’s mother in law and it was... a ride.

half naked sweaty man growls at random cars in the dark - is this teen wolf? twilight? so many possibilities

half naked sweaty man just got hit by a truck in a way he probably won’t survive if he’s not actually a werewolf. i don’t recall that ever happening in twilight, gosh.

we get steve and danny arriving at the hilton! this i’ve seen, because it was one of the preview clips, but i do like it a lot. i also like that steve implies that danny has been holding the liver donation over steve’s head constantly for favors, because a) we haven’t actually seen danny do that in recent times as far as i remember? like, at all? but mostly: b) this opens up endless fic opportunities about the many and varied Things Danny Asks Steve To Do to repay him for, and I quote danny here, “the gift of life”. that’s beautifully dramatic. nice choice of words.

and another thing: steve is claiming that this is the last favor he’ll do for danny and then they’ll be even, but come on, steve, honey. we all know who you are. we’ve all seen you agree to run a flipping restaurant with danny. like you’re going to tell him no after this, next time he asks you to do something ridiculous

danny: “your naive optimism is uh, is very cute.” steve: [looks at danny sideways for a moment too long]

danny is trying to tell steve that his mother in law tortured him his entire marriage and steve’s not really getting it, so that’s Not Good, but i’m skipping past that for the moment and hopping straight into “what are you gonna do? just tell me.” / “i’m gonna stand there and look handsome and not say anything.” because that is Good. i rambled about this in the tags of some post, i think, but i love how steve’s response is clearly rehearsed and probably something danny fed him pretty literally (“[don’t just] stand there and look handsome” is an exact phrase danny used earlier this season, even), which is something all kinds of things could be said about in general, but also means that danny indirectly called steve cute AND handsome in the span of maybe a minute of this episode. wherever this ends up, at least it has a good start

this DANGER! DANGER! music when rachel’s mother opens the door both made me laugh with how unexpectedly over the top it was and has me kind of tired of the setup of this plotline already. terrible, horrible mother in law stories? i’m not a huge fan

alright, so i’m ignoring all the prickly passive-agressive behavior from rachel’s mom towards danny for the moment because ugh, and what i like far better anyway is how well steve is keeping to his mission to stand sit there and look handsome and not say anything. he even LOOKS AT DANNY FOR PERMISSION when rachel’s mom asks him a direct question that he can’t answer with stoic, handsome silence.

the first words out of steve’s mouth are, of course, “daniel’s my partner”. when are they not. (though he did remember the “we work together” bit this time, which is rare)

he called danny “daniel” and introduces himself as “steven” which cracks me up for no good reason. i guess he’s trying to be fancy?

i... i... you know, i just don’t really know what to say about the way rachel’s mom (amanda savage, i think? let’s call her amanda) snubs danny every chance she gets and flirts with steve in this extremely, well, almost stereotypical “rich older woman on the prowl” way. idk, i really think meeting rachel’s mom could have been very interesting, but with the way this character was written and behaves, she’s pretty much a caricature. not even in a way that’s clever or funny to me, just in a way that really tires me out because it’s mean and not very interesting and every so slightly misogynistic.

steve: “i can handle myself.” amanda, leering: “i bet you can.” danny: YEP ALRIGHT i’m going to jump in here with an unnecessary defense of steve that sounds like i’m boasting about him.

steve thinks danny needs to relax. oh boy. oh babe. that’s maybe not... quite the right way to handle this situation where your bff is very clearly being put down repeatedly by a woman that he’s been telling you (also repeatedly) that he has a bad history with. on the other hand, you know, i could almost make steve’s reaction here make sense for myself, because amanda reminds me of steve’s own mom in certain ways and steve’s never been good at standing up against doris or seeing her shit for what is really is either, so. gosh. boy has some issues. (but danny still REALLY deserves better support than this, so get over it, steve.)

why the random single word of italian, steve, omg. danny’s “kiss ass” was very deserved.

junior: “the killer’s dna or fingerprints could be on one of these vials.” tani: “ugh, wouldn’t that be oh so helpful? which probably means it’s not gonna happen.” tani, you poetic and nobel land mermaid, you really don’t know how these detective shows work, do you?

i do like this case that the rest of five-0 is working on, by the way! it’s very interesting so far

steve: “i am four glasses of champagne in today.” fdjkfdjk maybe that’s how he’s still so cheerful in amanda’s presence. hey danny, there’s your solution: day drinking.

okay. OKAY. amanda just handed steve and only steve a present for all his hard work because he “came of [his] own volition”, which sure, whatever, obviously she was going to snub danny here too by not getting him anything, but the reason for it is what bugs me. “i realize of course that daniel had to come because of the family obligations and that”, she says, but omg, WHAT family obligations? he divorced your daughter, holy shit. he’s your grandkids’ dad, but that’s a LOT of corners to take before we get to you two being family, let alone having any obligations to each other. which, really, even if he did have those - maybe you, dear amanda, could possibly be convinced to feel obligated to be ever so slightly less completely hostile to this guy who’s doing you a favor. this is. this is very annoying.

this thing where steve asks amanda about where she gets the ideas for her books and amanda says she just had some inspiration for a story about a policeman who risks everything for the love of an older woman? i mean, i knew something like that was coming, because it had to, but i still think it’s pretty damn creepy.

steve: “i would uh, i would read that.” steve, darling, the fuck are you doing.

danny: “yeah, except he can’t actually read unless it’s a cereal box or something like that.” completely untrue (steve is a nerd! steve reads for fun!), but also completely deserved, holy shit. wreck him, danny.

amanda complains about rachel’s wedding day (when she was getting married to danny, obviously, who’s sitting right next to her) and we’re getting some impressive Looks between steve and danny and yes!! that’s better!! that’s more like the understanding danny deserves

danny’s dad paid extra for the fish tank in the wedding day limousine for amanda (which means he went out of his way to get her something nice!) that she’s now ragging on, and her answer is “well daniel, you and i have different ideas of what constitutes class” which is just. god. i hate everything about that. and not even in the way where it’s fun to dislike a character, which it can be if things are done right, but in the way where it just... physically makes my skin crawl. idk if this is still supposed to be funny, but it’s not my idea of humor.

junior: “i’m pretty sure that guy thinks i’m gay.” tani: “weird. just a normal, heterosexual dude chatting up every muscley guy in this gym. what would make anyone think that?” okay, so this isn’t the most original joke ever, but this show is often so extremely straight that i’m just low key very excited about every single time they acknowledge the fact that that’s not entirely the only option. also, i love tani. so much.

TANI HAS TO IMPROVISE A DANCE CLASS. “booty boost 101.” beautiful. THAT’S the content i’m here for, omg.

danny: “you hear that stuff about the wedding?” steve: “yeah, that was a little harsh.” A LITTLE. and then he starts explaining the difference between the english and americans to danny, which, sweetheart, danny was married to an englishwoman for a decade. you’re mansplaining this except, like, to another man, for a change.

danny tells steve that he FLEW TO ENGLAND on a budget to ask amanda for rachel’s hand because rachel’s dad had passed away and amanda told him no. oh, fuck off. steve, you fuck off too, right now, because i love you but you’re being Not Great about this.

steve: “you know what that is, right? that right there, that’s self-pity.” STEVE. NO. BAD STEVE. i get where he’s coming from and maybe danny even needs to hear this on some level, but steve can’t say this shit after he’s already been taking amanda’s side all day.

steve: “cause let me telll you right now, you, my friend, you are more than adequate.” danny: “thank you. thank you.” steve: “you’re welcome.” that’s more like it! it’s a start, anyway, even though it’s probably all we’re going to get.

danny has made reservations at THREE fancy restaurants to give amanda options, but she asks for steve’s opinion and he (of course) takes her to kamekona’s. oh god. but hey, at least danny’s “please make sure that everything is fresh, because if she gets food poisoning we’ll all be killed” made me laugh.

FLIPPA READS ROMANCE NOVELS AND WILL NOT BE ASHAMED OF IT. this is the first actually good thing to come out of this whole romance novel author thing!

steve, to amanda, while danny is out of earshot: “you know i got to tell you something, i’ve known a lot of people in my life, and that man right there? [points to danny, pauses] he’s the best of the best.” this is GOOD, but you should perhaps consider not only taking danny’s side with any kind of conviction when it’s behind his back. he needs to hear this!!!

amanda pretends to be unsure if steve means flippa or danny and steve goes, actually kind of annoyed for the first time all day, “mandy”, and i appreciate that. i appreciate less that amanda immediately tries to change the subject so they’re talking about steve.

danny tries one last time to point out to amanda that she’s being unfair and when she’s still unwilling to admit to anything he calmly STANDS UP and WALKS AWAY. i can’t even put words to how much i’m cheering for him right now because SHIT YES GOOD FUCKING FINALLY. plus, the way he did this? fuck. i’m proud.

amanda’s reaction: “ah.” can we, like... send her into space? permanently?

steve’s face, though, is far more interesting to me.

lou shoots the doctor who was trying to run away in the leg!!!! holy shit, that’s exactly the thing i’m always quietly wondering about, because it would be SUCH a good way to keep someone from running without, you know, killing the suspect on the spot.

this thing with tani almost dying was intense, god.

danny is at the hotel bar and tells the bartender he has a buddy coming to meet him (which is why he buys two beers) soooo that’s very obviously steve. and then amanda turns up. which i knew would happen, because i’ve seen people talk about it, but still. not what we want.

amanda...... “swiped”..... steve’s phone. meaning she lured danny here using steve. great. awesome. just, really, just super. (like. fucking at least be honest about wanting to talk to danny or something, if that’s what you want. he’s been nothing but curteous to you despite your horrific behavior, and still you feel the need to trick him into this? jesus.)

“sorry for all the subterfuge but i had to have a conversation with you and i knew that you’d say no if i asked.” if there’s one thing that’s become pretty clear this episode it’s that she literally doesn’t know danny at all, omg, but i guess that at least this is in character for her by now.

oh my gosh. just. oh my fucking god. amanda tells danny that she kind of identified with him because she grew up with three siblings in a two-bedroom apartment, but she always wanted something more, and she was looking for a good man but never found one, and then she was jealous of rachel when rachel found danny because he is a good man. this is so many levels of fucked up all stacked on top of each other that i don’t even want to try to pry them apart right now.

danny, very drily: “hm.” I LAUGHED SO HARD. this episode is shitty to danny, but at least danny’s reactions are very on point and relatable.

amanda goes on, and of course shit gets worse, because her bodyguard isn’t even out of commission, she just used that as a ploy to “have a talk” with danny. danny kind of laughs like this is the weirdest shit he’s heard all week and goes “yeah?” and honestly, poor guy.

danny: “you didn’t wanna just tell me that when you, when you first saw me? you wonna torture me for the whole day?” you know, one thing i’m glad for is that at least, at the very least, the show lets danny be fully aware that this is Not Okay.

amanda: “do you care about my daughter, daniel?” danny: “yes, i do.” amanda: “well good, then don’t toy with her affections. i know that you two have been seeing each other a lot and i know that she is talking about you all the time so i don’t want to see her hurt again, okay?” listen. this is just. this is just such bizarre retcon shit the writers are trying to pull about the way things between rachel and danny went down that i just. i’m mad, on some level, sure, but mostly i just have to laugh because it’s so ridiculous? danny’s mother in law is an absolute nightmare to him all day, then lies to get him to this hotel bar for a talk, confesses she orchestrated this entire day just to get to this talk (but still wilfully made him miserable for some reason? why???), and tells him that he shouldn’t play with her daughter’s feelings after she’s never been anything but awful to him, has tried to keep her away from her daughter from the very start, and just told him that she apparently did all of that (for years and years!) because she was jealous that rachel had found a Good Man and she hadn’t. i am. completely overwhelmed, honestly. this is too much to take in.

amanda: “i want you to do right by her. will you do right by her?” danny: “yes.” danny looks confused, and that’s how i feel, honestly.

... and. and then he pays for champagne for her. wasn’t she having dinner with rachel and the kids? why is she drinking champagne with danny now? 

okaaaaay. so. this was... an episode. that’s something i can say for sure.

for all of the rest of it, i think i need to give this some time to sink in and mull it over, because there’s A LOT to unpack here. amanda is, uh, a strong character. she doesn’t seem like a person i’d wish on anyone, least of all as a mom. rachel’s deception and her penchant for lying to danny? yeah, i can see where that’s coming from, now. that’s one interesting thing to come from this episode, i suppose - some character background for rachel.

then there’s steve, who took most of this way less seriously than i think he really should have, and when he finally started seeing sense and sticking up for danny near the end of the episode, he just... disappeared. i really wanted steve and danny to at least have some kind of talk after danny walked away from kamekona’s, but that was the last we saw of steve. danny was trying to have a beer with steve, but obviously that turned out to have been amanda’s charming little “ploy”, so he ended up having champagne with amanda instead. which is still. uh. weird. she never apologized for any of the shit she pulled (except for that little “sorry for all the subterfuge” which really doesn’t cover it) and even after she supposedly explained herself, she still turned her nose up at the beer that danny had bought for steve and offered to her until he said she could have something else if she wanted. doesn’t she have her own money? she’s a rich romance author. buy your own fucking champagne, amanda. or better yet, cover danny’s beer - it’s the last you could do.

what i liked a little more was danny’s complete lack of a reaction to most of what amanda said to him at the bar. i mean, he laughs and looks disbelieving and possibly a little wtf-ish, but that’s about it. i’m guessing, as usual when it comes to anything danny&rachel related, that the writers are interpreting this differently from what i want to read into this (or at least they’re using it to push in a direction i really don’t want to go), but that’s the thing about this - it’s pretty open to interpretation, because danny says very little and his faces could mean any of a million things.

also. that talk at the bar? it feels kind of useless in the end. amanda said some stuff but didn’t apologize or promise to change her behavior and in fact she seemed pretty much the same with her whole champagne thing, and danny didn’t really get to say anything at all, so this does pretty much nothing for them. i guess the champagne was meant as a celebration for... a new level of understanding? but is that really something that was happening there? you could read that into it, if you really wanted to, but i’m not seeing it.

anyway. i liked the drugs storyline that the rest of five-0 was working on! that was good. the steve and danny part... i don’t know. it was a lot.

[feminist-hot-takes]

Why “Pop Feminism” sucks

Feminism as popularized by the likes of Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, or Miley Cyrus can be defined simply as “believing in equality of women and men” or “loving yourself as a woman”. I’m positing that this “pop feminism” is interpreted to be the practice of encouraging female autonomy. Women should be able to do anything and everything they want to, free of outside coercion. While much of the earliest feminist conversations have been centered around proving that women are able to do X Y or Z as well as men can, current mainstream concerns are more about encouraging women to actually do those X Y or Z things, and granting them the access and power to do so more easily, without judgement. Women should be CEO’s, presidents, senators, police chiefs, principals, professors... women should share equally in the power men hold over our society, culture, and economy. It’s a numbers game. Women should be able to lead free, autonomous lives. Be a sex worker! Be a housewife! Be a teacher! Be a CEO! Be an instagram model! Be an oppressor! Do whatever you want. Any decision a woman makes “freely” is then feminist praxis. You want to quit your job, leave the demands of the workplace, and focus on raising your children in a household, despite some fake ���feminists” telling you not to? Do it! You want to be an escort and live off of rich men? Do it! A woman who tries to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do, or who criticizes your actions to be actually ‘anti-feminist’ is NOT a real feminist, but rather a cranky old lady stuck in the second wave who needs to be fully liberated. Our biggest female celebrities are able to make millions of dollars off their sex appeal, participating in the “sex sells” scheme that has made women famous since the likes of Marilyn Monroe, and still be a feminist. This pop feminism is easy, accessible, fun, and profitable. Forever 21 will sell you “feminist” merchandise. Teen Vogue regularly publishes articles about “feminist” celebrities. Young girls can grow up watching scantily clad Katy Perry, Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus shaking their asses in music videos, and realize their autonomous ability to “subjectify” their bodies in an empowering way, despite the fact that almost no male pop stars engage in the same supposedly “empowering” behavior. Ariel Levy discusses this rise in “Raunch” feminist culture of the 90s into the 2000s in Female Chauvinist Pigs to be highly influenced by neo-liberalism and the commodification of sexuality. 

What is this brand of feminism trying to prove? That women can do *literally* anything they want to and still be a feminist? Then what’s the point? Pop feminism places the sole defining factor of what is or isn’t feminist into the conscious intentions of the feminist actor, rather than the effects or results of their actions on themselves or others. There isn’t even any strong ethical framework in place to judge what those conscious intentions should be aiming at. For example, pop feminism doesn’t ask feminists to make decisions with the intentions of say, increasing one’s day-to-day happiness, or dismantling patriarchy. Women should just be able to do whatever they want, free of disruption or critique. Without a concrete goal or mission with which to monitor one’s conscious intentions of actions, this feminism falls flat. A progressive movement whose label can be stamped onto seemingly any woman’s actions as “feminist” does not change or better the conditions for women in any way. If we as feminists are not expected to change or monitor our own actions, make sacrifices, or even cater our actions to be intended to accomplish some sort of unified goal, how are we to change anything? Where is the sense in performing the same actions and behaviors for decades and expecting some different, better outcome each time?

I would argue that this feminism even permits women to co-exist and excuse blatant misogyny in a cool “liberating” way. For example, young women may date or have sex with misogynist dirt-bags who see women as objects in order to gain security, housing, food, money, or “woke” clout, even when these women are not in desperate situations where this is their only way of survival. These men are powerful, and use women to maintain this power and status. This logic is troubling. If a slave consciously decides to remain a slave and maintain their perceived existence as an object or commodity to be owned in an effort to secure stability, housing, food... is this liberating? Perhaps in some cases, the risks of revolution or escape are great enough that remaining a slave is indeed a more safe choice. But I doubt anyone would say this is “liberating” in any sense. How is consciously intending the fulfillment of your own oppression liberating?  

This pop feminism is rampant in the mainstream music industry. Besides the celebrities already mentioned, Ariana Grande, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and Ke$ha are additional spokesmen of this philosophy. Ironically, Ke$ha’s situation with her producer, Dr. Luke, is proof of the phony nature of pop feminism.

When Ke$ha came onto the scene, she was the embodiment of the drunk, stupid, party girl character who puked glitter, had sex in public, and lived life as a “free spirit”. This caricature was framed as feminist, liberating, and re-appropriating the “slut” stereotype. Ke$ha is a liberated feminist! Who can do whatever she wants! Years after her premiere on the scene with the party anthem “Tik Tok”, Ke$ha quietly left the pop world to focus on her lawsuit against her abusive and manipulative producer, Dr. Luke, who held complete control over her financially and professionally. After years of public struggle, weak support from fellow celebrities (ex. Taylor Swift sent over Ke$ha $250,000 in show of “support”, but didn’t do much else) and a stint in rehab for eating disorders and mental health issues, Ke$ha lost. 

Pop music is a machine. While Katy Perry shoots whipped cream out of her bra against an army of Snoop Doggs in a music video, she may be claiming self-objectification and empowerment. But on the other side of the screen are a whole slew of men, directing, monitoring, and profiting off of all things Katy Perry. Just as Marilyn Monroe’s sexualized image was directed and encouraged by the professional world of men around her in order to profit, the same goes for pop stars today. Only now, these pop stars tell us they’re intending to sexualize themselves. So it’s feminist...? Men in the music industry are now benefiting from the feminist branding, sometimes even more than the women they brand. They can continue to produce and control sexualized female celebrities as they’ve always done, but now, feminism is on their side. On the surface, Ke$ha may preach liberation and autonomy and intended sexualization, while behind the scenes, she’s suffering from the same mental health issues as notable sex symbols of the past (Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland...) and subjected to major abuse. 

Why do we describe the identity of a “feminist” purely by a belief in equality for women and men? Feminists are defined only by sharing a belief, rather than sharing a commitment to action or goals. Feminism is then made apolitical, requiring almost no change in actions or behavior. You can be a republican and a feminist! You can be catholic and a feminist! While this apolitical nature helps the idea of feminism reach farther stretches of the population than say, the Black Lives Matter movement  what’s the point in a movement that carries no firm ethical framework or goal or mission? 

I would argue that this feminism of autonomy is touted mainly by women who don’t experience the more tangible and oppressive effects of patriarchy. Or at least, by women who are unable to truly acknowledge how patriarchy effects themselves.  If women were no longer raped, abused, silenced, and murdered, then of course, women could do anything. If we didn’t live in a patriarchy, a woman choosing to be a housewife wouldn’t have the same implications it does now. Rid of the link between objectification and abuse, self-sexualizing wouldn’t be such a big deal. But we don’t exist in a vacuum. For the women who are daily confronted with the uglies of patriarchy right in their faces, total autonomy isn’t going to do them much good. Autonomy, of course, should be the result of the feminist project. However, depending on it this early in the fight against patriarchy is putting the cart before the horse. Autonomy cannot be both the means and ends of feminism. 

What I’m arguing may lead to some conservative conclusions about women participating in sex work, pornography, etc and whether or not these actions can truly be enacted in liberating manners. As a woman who has freely participated in sex work in the past, I recognize the complexities of the issue on a personal level, and how confusing it can be to navigate as a young female within a capitalist state. It’s a matter of balancing the idealism of a feminist ethics and mission with the realistic situation women find themselves in while living in capitalism. Feminists have been arguing over the ‘sex wars’ for decades, and it seems sex-positive feminism has won. I’d like to dissect this problem more in a separate essay.

[mswyrr]

Who is the real Samantha Caine? It’s the question that looms over The Long Kiss Goodnight, the 1996 shoot-em-up written by Shane Black and directed by Renny Harlin. For eight long years, Samantha (Geena Davis) has wondered this every time she looks in the mirror and sees a body riddled with scars she doesn’t remember getting. Is she just another mousy, small-town schoolteacher and mother who heads the PTA or was she once another kind of woman entirely?

With the help of a private eye (Samuel Jackson) — the cheapest one her money can buy — she hopes to finally learn just who that woman was that she kissed goodnight all those years ago. Only now, she doesn’t have much of a choice: she has to figure it out fast, because the clock is ticking and her dark past is about to determine the outcome of her future.

...Black, who would go on to write and direct Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and the 2016 mystery-crime thriller The Nice Guys, packs the script with explosive turns and over-the-top action. The film is brimming with everything you’d expect from a mid-90s action flick — bombs, bullets and bad guys galore, and plenty of juicy one-liners most of which delivered to perfection by Jackson — but nothing is excessive. Every scene is intricately pieced together, with each devised to reveal something new. The sheer chemistry between Harlin, Davis and Jackson fuels the film and keeps it humming to such fine extent that it never feels overworked, not even for a moment.

In some ways, the biggest mystery about The Long Kiss Goodnight isn’t really who Samantha really is or how Charly’s dangerous past is bound to interfere with the present. Instead, it’s how this clever action-adventure never found itself a larger audience. The film offers a playful take on the The-Man-Who-Knew-Too-Much concept, but Black subverts it by centering all of the mystery around a woman here instead of a man. And not just any kind of woman, mind you, but a middle-aged one which, unfortunately, is not usually a winning draw at the box office for any kind of film, let alone an action one. Although innovative, The Long Kiss Goodnight couldn’t help but fall victim to the rule. It bombed at the box office domestically, raking in less than $35 million against a $65 million budget and making most of its money ultimately overseas. Still, its energy is undeniable, and so much of that can be attributed not just to its special effects, but to the nuanced performance delivered here by Davis.

With Davis at the helm, Charly and Samantha don’t feel like caricatures, which is an easy trap for an actor to fall into when playing split personalities. Instead, they emerge as two distinct halves that find their agency through the painful struggle of reconciliation.

They need each other, point blank. This synergy of consciousness gives vitality to the movie. Without the other, neither can survive the seemingly impossible set of obstacles that emerge as the film barrels toward climax. It’s only when both of them realize this — once Samantha accepts the power of Charly’s brutality and Charly, in turn, embraces the humanity that has kept Samantha anchored to the world — that the woman within finally taps into the purest source of strength there is: self-love and acceptance.

She then proceeds to kick a whole lot of ass. Really, what more could any action film lover ask for?

Samantha is her own femme fatale in this Neo Noir and the resolution is not to submit to or destroy the dark feminine (the whore side of the madonna/whore dichotomy Samanda and Charly are split into) but to embrace her because she’s part of any woman and she deserves her due. Culture tells women: pick a side. It’s shameful to be a dowdy mom. It’s shameful to be a bad girl. You have to choose. It’s a trick, though. Sam drains her own power when she tries to deny her full self; Charly is weakened when she thinks she has to kill Samantha off. In the end, they aren’t two opposites, but one whole.

Not a good girl or a bad girl. A woman. A person.

It’s a redemption of some misogynistic tropes that’s as spectacular and full of fireworks as the action scenes. I love this move!

[fadedtoblue]

My thoughts on The Punisher

Surprise, surprise -- I have (extremely scattershot) thoughts about The Punisher! 

The husband and I binged this over the past 3 days (2 episodes Thursday @ midnight, 5 episodes Friday night, and 6 episodes over Saturday) and given its unrelenting intensity I’m pretty sure there are a lot of details I’m not going to fully grasp until I watch this again, but overall impression -- super solid. I would still personally rank it under Daredevil (sorry, he’s always gonna be my number 1!!), but I think it jockeys for second position with Jessica Jones? This particular show did some things amazingly well that the others haven’t, I think largely due to the fact that it was a standalone series, separate from the Defenders, and didn’t need to mess around with rationalizing any superheroics or powers -- at its core, it’s an intense and violent 13-hour examination of Frank Castle, who incidentally exists in a world with superheroes. But anyway, let’s dive in -- it should go without saying that spoilers absolutely abound after the cut...

Let’s start with the good stuff:

Jon Bernthal as Frank. Listen, whether you loved or hated the show, it can’t be denied that Jon absolutely kills it as Frank. This show lives and dies on those fine as hell shoulders and he brings it in every stage of Frank we see on screen. I liked that they never shied away from all of the messy parts of him -- geez, when he’s holding a freaking knife to Zack’s neck...worst parental pep talk ever? Or when he’s genuinely encouraging Lewis to blow himself up. And the unflinching way he goes about his kills. But as you can imagine, it’s those moments when he loses his grip on his steely control, when he can’t rely on his rage to hold him together...those were my favorite ones. When he has those aching moments with Karen by the waterfront and in the elevator. When he realizes that Russo knew about the mission that would kill Maria and the kids. We know Frank does rage well but I’m glad we didn’t fully leave behind broken, grieving Frank either. 

Well-drawn side characters, especially those that had a direct relationship with Frank. As far as main character relationships go, Frank and Micro pretty much made it for me? They balanced each other so well and were such assholes...yet caring assholes lol. I don’t even think I could keep track of how many times I just burst out laughing during their scenes. Frank explicitly trying to fuck with him by visiting Sarah, Frank tying Micro naked to the chair (of course he would), Micro pushing Frank around in the chair (hee), any exchanges that had to do with food (lol the sandwich bit), the drunk shit-talking...I loved it all. Part of me hopes that David can just live a happy, quiet life with his family and not get pulled into this shit anymore but I’m sure that’s not happening...which makes me feel torn haha.

Frank and Karen were a highlight as well. It was definitely very measured amounts of interaction, but I felt like they didn’t waste a second of it. And the way it culminated was quite emotional, but earned. Like that amazing scene in the elevator with Karen, absolutely beat up and exhausted and nearly broken and the only thing keeping them standing in that moment is that unspoken thing between the two of them -- they want so much to lean into each other and just stop but they know they can’t. She knows he can’t. And her implicit support and encouragement for him to continue on was a really strong character beat. There’s no way they don’t see each other again in DDS3 as far as I’m concerned. 

After that, I did like what they did with his connections to Curtis and Billy, I definitely bought all of them as members of the same unit and connected by this unspoken code / brotherhood. I had issues with some of the background motivations which I’ll bring up later but...yeah, I was just like DAMN Frank actually has some really good friends! I’ll call out Billy briefly here, because shit, he was SO MESSED UP but I think they did a really good job evolving his position as Frank’s grieving brother in arms in the beginning of the series to someone who has gone crazy from losing everything he’s worked for and I’m already shivering a little to imagine the pain he’s going to lay at the feet of Frank Castle and characters like Dinah...ugh ugh ugh! But anyway, well done by Ben Barnes!

Considerate approach to examining grief, PTSD and veteran’s issues. Okay, I’m really not super knowledgeable about PTSD and veteran’s issues in general so I’m only speaking from my own limited opinion, but the way it was approached on this show felt...fresh? It was handled with respect -- mainly in showing how different people process and deal with that trauma differently...you could see that in Frank, Curtis, Billy, and Lewis -- but at the same time worked as an unflinching examination of how the system fails...so that part was really solid. At first I wasn’t entirely sure why we were spending so much time with Curtis and the support group and these slightly caricatured individuals but I think it paid off in the end. Lewis was a struggle for me at first but I ultimately think he was an extremely necessary story to tell because he does encapsulate all of the failures the show was trying to examine and I think Frank needed to confront someone like him over the course of this show. 

And the examination of grief. I’ll touch upon what they did with Sarah in this section because I think that’s basically the purpose she was meant to serve with Frank. I’m sure some people weren’t super thrilled with how much it got drawn out, but I don’t know, it really kind of worked for me? Obviously Frank makes first contact simply to freak Micro the fuck out (and it works), but at a certain point, it’s essentially forced into continued contact with Sarah and the kids and despite his best efforts, I think he starts to confront his own issues and demons regarding Maria and the kids through this connection with a woman who actually has a unique and powerful understanding of exactly what he’s going through. And these meetings are almost like therapy for him? I can’t imagine he’s ever had a safe space to process all of the ways he feels like he’s let his family down. And I think he is able to work through some of this by talking to Sarah, by connecting with the kids. This is really something Frank the character needed. As far as the romantic overtones? Undertones? I found it quite realistic actually. I liked that the show towed a grey area with it for a while, and if you think a single mother of two kids who is still intensely grieving the loss of her husband and her children’s father wouldn’t respond romantically to this man who keeps showing up and essentially fixing her life? I was super opposed to the idea of Frank kissing Sarah but I think the way they did it worked. They were very clear that it was a response borne out of her own struggles, and Frank makes it very clear to her and to Micro that this doesn’t mean anything to him. If you see how Sarah reacts to Micro in the last couple of episodes (damn it was a gutpunch) then you wouldn’t worry about what she thinks about Frank Castle! 

Episodic pacing + interesting storytelling devices. People usually gripe and grouse that Netflix shows have pacing issues but I felt like Punisher (even with my minor issues with plot and stuff) really kept me engaged through the entire run. None of the episodes felt like filler or stopped the story in its tracks (which has definitely happened on all of the other Marvel Netflix series). They also took some fun risks with storytelling structure, particularly in 1x05 (with the ambush on Gunnar’s property being mainly told via body cam) and 1x10 (with the time jumps / intercutting between various POV, both reliable and not) -- it was things like that which kept the show chugging along at an exciting pace.

The not so good?

Lackluster conspiracy plot / overall antagonist. So listen, I want to be clear that I liked Dinah Midani, so I hate that I’m talking about her in the context of the not so good stuff -- she injected a dynamic the show needed, which was a strong ass female character that doesn’t really need men for anything, and more specifically, doesn’t really need the “hero” of the show for anything either (except you know, a witness statement lol)! I loved the moments we had with her and Billy (even though, UGH BILLY!!! That washing her off in the tub scene gave me legit shivers and rage) and even the briefer moments we had between her and other characters, like Karen, her mom, even her boss Rafi. But she was also the driver of a conspiracy plot that to me, kind of missed the mark. I liked that they took those threads from DDS2 and tried to build them into a larger, more wide reaching governmental conspiracy in TPS1 but...I don’t know, it just never felt like it was realized enough, and the characters more prominent in that plot never felt more than just one-dimensional means to an end (also it didn’t feel realistic that it was basically just two people doing shit in Homeland Security on any case at given time). Her motivation worked but every time they showed her smarts and intelligence and dedication to her job, they would undercut it a bit by making her less than capable in the field, always making questionable decisions and getting her people killed. Overall, it was one of those, works on paper, doesn’t work in execution kind of storylines. 

And tying this conspiracy plot that never quite worked to the lack of a strong, overall antagonist -- I don’t think it’s something a regular show would have needed, but as a comic book adaptation (particularly a Marvel Netflix one), I was expecting a bit more. Rawlins was literally never a convincing antagonist -- his inclusion felt like a necessity on the conspiracy side, but he didn’t play off Frank in any convincing way. He was a blowhard and an asshole, not really a bad guy. That misogynist asshole Wolfe had more convincing presence to me in the small number of episodes he featured in than Rawlins tbh. As for Russo, he was obviously a much stronger foil to Frank (and a compelling secondary foil to Dinah as the female lead) but since the story was actively building him up to become the villain next season, he didn’t really tick the right antagonist boxes for me this time around either. I also didn’t like how his motivations felt really muddled a lot of the time, I liked that we kept switching back and forth from oh wait Billy is a good guy, oh no, Billy is an epic piece of shit, but I would have appreciated more clarity on why he made the choices he made and why that would justify such an epic betrayal of his brother.  

Heavyhanded approach to certain side issues. As well done as the grief and PTSD storylines were, most of the gun control related side plots just didn’t really work for me. I understood why they included it -- you can’t make a show like the Punisher in this current day and age without addressing the elephant in the room -- but it just felt really clunky. I guess at the very least they made the characters symbolizing both sides of the debate equally clunky? Hypocrite senator was about as annoying as NRA blowhard guy (though he certainly didn’t deserve to meet that end, RIP NRA blowhard guy). I guess I just feel torn because I have a very strong stance on this IRL but I almost feel as if I would have rather they not included it in this show if it wasn’t going to be handled with care. I’ve accepted that the Punisher and really any sort of violence driven show created for entertainment (which is...so much of our programming nowadays) can’t always be a grand statement regarding societal ills. Sometimes they just are what they are. But at least in the case of the Punisher, it didn’t feel like the violence was meant to be glorified or cheered on (I didn’t anyway) or viewed as some sort of heightened violence fantasy. It was brutal and unsettling. Anyway, all of this to say that I clearly don’t quite know about I feel about it since this was such a damn rambly paragraph lol. 

Storytelling issues + plot holes. So while I’ve said that the biggest positive the show had to offer was the lack of reliance on an expected superhero formula, I think this made me struggle a bit more than usual with being able to suspend my disbelief about certain goings-ons in-show...like, the moment Frank shaves off his hobo hipster beard, how does NO ONE RECOGNIZE THE DUDE FROM LAST YEAR’S TRIAL OF THE CENTURY?? (Though I legit enjoyed the hilariously awkward silence of the Lieberman family watching the TV and being like WTF) And how does Frank literally get shot / stabbed / tortured in every other episode but manage to bounce back in a day so he could do more Punishing. Even Matt couldn’t recover that quickly if he tried! Like I don’t know, I would have liked to see Frank wearing more body armor or protecting his head or SOMETHING. And as delightfully fanservice-y the Turk cameo was, no way Frank Castle wouldn’t end him without a second thought. Of course, these are such nitpicks but they did take me out of it every so often. 

So as you can see, for me there were more positives than negatives. Everything that I saw makes me extremely excited to see Frank’s Punisher in the Marvel Netflix universe again. I thought they told a very self contained story here and hit nearly all of the beats that you could want in this particular adaptation. I wouldn’t have expected them to leave it so open ended at the end but in retrospect it was a bold choice and I think one that is very considerate of this version of Frank Castle that we know. As someone who doesn’t have the emotional attachment to him via comics, I’m somewhat glad we didn’t just end this show with him as full on Punisher. I think there are more stories to explore before we get there. I also 100% expect him to reappear in DDS3 at this point and I’m super curious about where he goes in TPS2. I feel by that point, they’ll need to lean into the more comic book-y elements and it’ll be interesting to see how they handle that tonal shift. 

[thesuper17]

2018′s most impactful musical moments

-

nobody key change

If Be The Cowboy, Mitski Miyawaki's fifth album, is as interwoven with artifice as she suggested in an interview with Pitchfork shortly before its release, it only makes lead single Nobody a more beguiling accomplishment. A purer expression of longing than the opening line: 'My god I'm so lonely/ so I open the window/ to hear sounds of people', could scarcely by imagined, but evidence of a distance between Nobody's author and its lead character is provided in the song's meticulous craft and execution. That duality, between ostensibly real anguish and sparkling production sheen, is where Nobody lives, a version of the ubiquitous struggle more potent than the reality. Disco keys and syncopated rhythm propel the song forward even while Mitski sings of stagnation and hopelessness, and during the second chorus, she intones loneliness again and again, in rising arpeggios that begin to push into her falsetto range. Just as Mitski's delivery seemingly peaks in intensity, the chord progression beneath her shifts up a semitone, and she redoubles, hitting the same high B which formed the dominant 7 of the C# arpeggio she sang over the previous chord, now a 9 over A minor. The subtlety of the melodic movement Mitski employs over this key change is delivered in stark contrast to its proud and bombastic standard deployment. Nevertheless, the drama of her declaration is heightened a notch further in this instant, and it is her commitment to the technical, rather than the raw expression of emotion, that facilitates this. Perhaps Mitski is weaving a story in Nobody, but it's her mastery as both empath and composer that see it land with such weight. -

everyday is an emergency - first half

In many ways Aviary and Have You In My Wilderness, the two most recent albums released by Los Angeles musician Julia Holter, feel more accurately characterised by the other's title. Wilderness saw Holter refine her previously sprawling arrangements and compositions to so many beautiful birds, purposeful in form and deliberately contained in scope. By the close of Aviary's first track, by contrast, the listener is already lost in Holter's wilderness, as vast, uncompromising and beautiful as it has ever been. Nowhere is the wild landscape of Holter's id, actively hostile to those who would try to derive a singular interpretation, more keenly evoked than during the first half of Everyday is an Emergency. Horns, strings and wordless vocals collide, unmoored to rhythm or any consistent harmony, their only direction an agonizingly slow, spiralling descent in pitch. Held notes begin in the upper registers, separated by semitones, and only briefly hinting at chords as if by the random incidence of related pitches occurring at once, before slipping back up against each other in grating disharmony. As other instrumentation joins the procession and the overall pitch finds a resting point, the abrasive cacophony recedes to a near-hypnotic drone. The listener is immersed for over a minute before a complete break, whereupon a melancholy, cycling melody emerges over rich grand piano chords. The second half of the track matches this haunting repeated melody to a recursive lyrical structure, in what is effectively a new song entirely. It's beautiful and, to the extent that Holter ever is, conventional, but it's also an oasis, a brief moment of calm found in the eye of an intense storm. Only after enduring the intense disquiet of the first four minutes are listeners granted entrance to this understated space, but Everyday is an Emergency is not designed to challenge. Holter plainly does not regard the accessibility of her music one way or another, she simply sketches the sprawling geography of her wilderness and leaves the listener to navigate.

-

sobbing and eating eggs again

Nearly every review of A Crow Looked at Me and its 2018 follow up Now Only does Phil Elverum a disservice by likening him to Mark Kozelek. On the surface, it is easy to draw comparisons between the recent work of Sun Kil Moon and Mount Eerie: Benji and A Crow both feature sparse arrangements of acoustic guitar over which frank reflections on life and death seem to spill, without edit or filter. Beyond similarities in form however, the two could not do more to evince opposing characters if it was intentional. Where Kozelek makes it his prerogative to 'find a deeper meaning' in the death of a cousin he says he 'had pretty much forgotten all about', Elverum understands the futility of even keeping Geneviève Castrée, his deceased wife, whole in his memory ('you did most of my remembering for me'). On Now Only's title track , he approaches the question of meaning more directly, of how his wife died 'for no reason' while he could only watch, and notes the absurdity. In this absurdity though, a form of coping, even humour, is found. It is not humour to laugh to, and it's not the homophobic or misogynistic jibes of Kozelek either, rather it’s a reminder that, for those still here, life continues. A near-obsessive thread of record-keeping pervades A Crow, of noting the exact number of days or weeks it has been since Geneviève passed, and the active effort Elverum makes to continue day after day seems no easier to rally a year on. But he does, and the majority of that effort goes into creating some version of normalcy for a daughter who has lost her mother. The absurdity comes to a head on Crow, Pt. 2, in which Elverum describes the shape of their new family life in mundane details, of living, talking about school and making food. Over breakfast, his daughter asks to hear 'momma's record', and as Elverum watches her piece together an understanding of loss from the sound of her mother's voice, he sings: 'I'm sobbing and eating eggs again'. He suggests earlier, on the title track, that the most devastating waves of grief have already begun to subside, and will eventually fade almost entirely, but life won't wait for that. Crow, Pt. 2 is the sound of Elverum experiencing the meantime, knowing eventually the sobbing will go, and the eggs will remain. For now though, he lives with both. -

let that boy come home

Deciding the moral victor of last year's Pusha-T/Drake's beef is a complex task. Pusha's verses incorporated real low-blows, and whether his purist approach to hip-hop helps or hurts the genre is a philosophical question. Luckily, determining the actual victor is incredibly simple. With hindsight, the closing track of Pusha's DAYTONA, Infrared, feels almost like bait. In enticing the world's biggest hip-hop artist to respond directly to him, Pusha ensured the maximum audience would be waiting for his inevitable counter, and he held onto the crucial detail just long enough for that moment to arrive. Throughout his 2018 album, Pusha's incredibly deliberate flow and inimitable swagger, combined with top-shelf beats from Kanye West on rare form, saw lines hit with a blunt force. The weight of his kingpin boasts was held up by the sheer quality and confidence of his delivery, and everyone, inside and out of the hip-hop scene, was in his sights. There's nothing blunt about The Story of Adidon. Pusha's 'surgical summer' begins tracing Drake's family life, with jibes at his absentee father that initially glance off as irrelevant, but details begin to paint a picture, and the smirk on Pusha's face is almost audible as he draws closer to his target's shame. Finally, the instantly iconic: 'You are hiding a child'. Pusha nearly caricatures his own delivery here, drawing out every word of the killing blow just to savour it a little longer, the 6 syllables last an eternity. Hip-hop beefs, and the genre more widely, often exist within a sort of stylized fiction, where actors are hypermasculine, dangerous and uncaring figures. Even though Pusha embodies this archetype completely, The Story of Adidon flips the trope on its head, targeting Drake specifically for his pride and those things 'deeper than rap', even telling him how to put things right. It's almost kind, and it's complete obliteration.    

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/the-controversial-genius-of-karl-lagerfeld/

The controversial genius of Karl Lagerfeld

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Karl Lagerfeld was known for his outspoken comments as well as his designs

Karl Lagerfeld’s death on Tuesday prompted an outpouring of grief from the fashion world.

The German designer, who was the creative director for Chanel and Fendi, was one of the industry’s most revered figures.

Tributes were paid by the likes of Donatella Versace and the fashion house Dior.

But others, including actress Jameela Jamil, said his often polarising comments cast a shadow over his legacy.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Jamil dubbed Lagerfeld “a ruthless, fat-phobic misogynist”

Jamil, who stars in comedy The Good Place, shared a link to an article criticising Lagerfeld, and said he should not be painted as a saint.

But the model and actress Cara Delevingne, who regularly worked with Lagerfeld, defended Lagerfeld, telling Jamil in now-deleted tweets, to “just go home” and “stop bashing people for attention”.

Lagerfeld steered Chanel for more than 30 years. He combined artistic flair with business acumen, which would see the Parisian label’s sales reach $10bn (£7.7bn) in 2017.

But throughout his career, he also made headlines for a range of provocative, and sometimes offensive, statements.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Cara Delevingne shared a close bond with Lagerfeld

They included comments about weight. Lagerfeld was open about his dislike for women who were above the traditional catwalk model size, a UK size 4 or 6, once calling the singer Adele “a little too fat”.

Lagerfeld later said his remarks had been taken out of context, and were actually in relation to US singer Lana Del Rey.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Adele was one of many celebrities who came in for criticism from Lagerfeld

He once said of Heidi Klum that she was “simply too heavy and has too big a bust”.

Speaking about plus-sized models on the catwalk, he said: “No one wants to see curvy women”.

And asked about women who object to thin models, he declared: “They are fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television, saying that thin models are ugly.”

Lagerfeld was known for mingling with the young, thin and trendy, and his death prompted warm tributes from many of his muses, including pop star Rihanna.

Lagerfeld’s relationships with models and his reputation as a designer were usually strong enough to be unscathed by comments that did not fit well in the modern fashion industry.

At one point, he was dismissive of models who spoke up about sexual harassment when #MeToo, the campaign against abuse, swept through Hollywood.

In an interview with the French magazine Numero, he said he was “fed up” with the movement.

He went on to defend stylist Karl Templer, who was accused of pulling down models’ underwear without consent, saying: “If you don’t want your pants pulled about, don’t become a model! Join a nunnery, there’ll always be a place for you in the convent.”

Lagerfeld’s words provoked comment the actress and activist Rose McGowan to call for a boycott of Chanel.

Harriet Hall, lifestyle editor and feminist columnist at The Independent, believes that Lagerfeld’s work and legacy as a designer should be respected, without whitewashing over some of his more contentious comments.

“Karl Lagerfeld sensed the socio-political mood and translated this into high fashion that celebrated women in a continuation of Coco Chanel’s own work,” Hall says.

“But that’s not to say we should forget his contrarian comments upon his passing and paint him as a perfect genius.”

She continues: “We should recognise his fashion legacy and progress past his more unsavoury traits.

“The fashion industry is experiencing a moment of change that is finally seeing diversity celebrated and ethical production prioritised: this is where we should direct our focus.”

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Lagerfeld once described wearing sweatpants as a “sign of defeat”

Some industry insiders have suggested Lagerfeld’s comments may not have reflected his real thoughts.

Suzy Menkes, editor of Vogue International, says dividing opinion was part of Lagerfeld’s brand.

“He was a very witty man and he would make outrageous comments about all sorts of things, and then often try to cover it up and explain that, no, he didn’t mean that at all,” she says.

Lagerfeld’s attempts to backtrack on some of his controversial comments did not always meet with success.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Meryl Streep demanded an apology from Lagerfeld for comments he made about her Oscars dress in 2017

A bitter row broke out between the designer and actress Meryl Streep in 2017, when Lagerfeld claimed Streep had rejected one of his dresses. He later issued a statement of regret for the comments, but Streep’s anger remained undimmed.

Streep vents fury in Oscars dress row

Chanel was also forced to apologise to the Muslim community when Lagerfeld designed several dresses printed with verses from the Koran in 1994.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Claudia Schiffer in one of Lagerfeld’s less controversial creations in 1994

Yet, Lagerfeld did not apologise when he evoked the holocaust in a verbal attack on the German chancellor Angela Merkel for taking in migrants from countries with a majority Muslim population. The comments, made in an interview on French TV in 2017, prompted hundreds of complaints.

Christian Christensen, professor of journalism at Stockholm University, said Lagerfeld’s controversial views should not be ignored or downplayed.

“Obituaries and biographies of extremely influential people where their expressions of bigotry or discrimination are glossed over – or ignored – only serve to reinforce the notion that such bigotry or discrimination is somehow less important than, say, designing a shirt,” he wrote on social media.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Lagerfeld, seen with models including Kate Moss (left centre) and Linda Evangelista (right centre) in 1995

Natasha Bird, digital editor for Elle, addressed Lagerfeld’s penchant for controversy in an interview with BBC Breakfast.

“I’m not going to dispute that some of the things he said were very controversial,” Bird said.

“He was a man who was a master of invention and he was able to evolve as time went on.”

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Lagerfeld on the Fendi catwalk in 2017

Certainly, Chanel under Lagerfeld did evolve. He once called the debate over the use of animal fur in fashion “childish”. Yet, Chanel became the first luxury fashion house in the world to stop using exotic animal skins, like snake, crocodile, lizard and stingray and fur.

But Lagerfeld was also responsible for showcasing some racially offensive stereotypes in his work, such as when he had model Claudia Schiffer appear in blackface and adopt an Asian appearance in an editorial shoot in 2010.

In 2007, Lagerfeld indicated that his controversial persona was an act.

“I am like a caricature of myself, and I like that,” he said.

“It is like a mask. And for me the Carnival of Venice lasts all year long.”

Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at Toldnewsnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@Toldnews.co.uk.

[3y7world]

TL;DR In defence of Brandon Stark

Oh, boy this ended up long, but I’m gonna post it anyway, maybe someone finds it interesting and maybe sparks some hope in them that Winds of Winter and Dream of Spring are still worth to be waiting for.

Ever since the Game of Thrones finale I see everyone crying about how Bran is actually a manipulative arsehole and the real villain of the story, and people doubting GRRM, judging him already if he was the one making this decision. I have also watched videos and read articles about raging people dissecting every inconsistency and illogical acts on the TV show and they all did much better job at it than I would, so I am not here to do that. But since I have put way too much thought into this and I hadn’t yet encountered anyone online that I could agree with a 100%, I decided to write this little dissertation on why I think Bran the Broken is the actual endgame of A Song of Ice and Fire and why it is the perfect ending.

I would like to say first though, that this is not going to defend the showrunners because they screwed up majorly, this is merely what I think that Martin might plan with the character of Bran Stark and why it all makes sense.

 Okay, it’s important for me to note that I am not exactly objective here. Bran is my second favourite character in the books (because no one can be more badass than Ser Davos Seaworth, I mean who else CANNOT WAIT for his story arc in Winds of Winter? An island full of cannibals, really?) and perhaps I have payed way too much attention to his storyline and motivations in the story so far and I might have ended up with an exaggerated version of him in my head, but it still sound kind of logical.

When the last episode came out I have been in a weird state of apathy: while the previous episodes in had left me raging, I couldn’t help myself watching the last episode and thinking “yep, I can see where they are going with all this” and I had realized very early that this might be because this is how the book will end and the two very different narrative in my head tend to mix up.

So, what A Song of Ice and Fire is actually about?

So far, I have encountered two different interpretation co-existing of this epic book series and both have been confirmed by quotes from the author himself.

The first one is very obvious: that the book is an exploration of the nature of power. How power would corrupt anyone, even the good or bad. Because we’re humans after all, we make mistakes, everyone has a bad side and a good side, and existence is basically about the inner struggle between the good and the bad in you. It goes even further and establishes that there’re no good people or bad people: “Someone’s hero is another’s villain” and it is explored in many ways through many minor and major characters. In the TV show this had become way oversimplified after they had run out of source material, making the good guys more good and the bad guys almost caricature of actual villains. We can make examples of this by comparing the things that are book canon and TV show canon. Like Jon Snow, who as commander of the Night’s Watch was spared from the more morally dubious decision he had to make in the books (i.e. switching little Sam with Val’s baby to ship off all the “king’s blood” out of Melissandre’s reach, or talking the young Karstark girl into marrying Tormund Giantsbane to somehow strengthen the position of the wildings south of the Wall). Were these things the right thing to do? Yes, absolutely. Was it cruel and unjust to people who had actually trusted him and considered him a friend? Also yes. Tyrion, whose shift into darkness was entirely omitted from the show bringing his character to a complete standstill after season 4, consequentially making it completely illogical for him to join up with Daenerys in the first place (I mean the “breaking the wheel” conversation is the stupidest thing I have ever heard and the Tyrion in the show, who is not super-vengeful towards every living thing in Westeros and a bitter shadow of himself like he’s in the books – though in there they haven’t met yet, so it might go down very differently – should have been able to point this out immediately, but I could rage on the wrongness of that single dialogue for ages, I must stop). Cersei, who started out as a cunning, insanely selfish, yet somehow strangely pitiful and very relatable character turns into an unjustified, completely illogical madwoman, with no real payoff. Or the whole complex and multi-layered politics and schemes of the Iron Islands simplified into arrrgh-igh and urrrgh-ing and some misogynistic jokes, completely killing Asha Greyjoy storyline and butchering up Euron’s entire being, making him into the most one-dimensional character ever. And the list goes on. This is the first point that made the ending with Bran Stark as king less understandable than it should be in the books, but more on that later.

Throughout the book series, at first we see the same struggle in Bran between what’s good and what’s evil and when he finally meets the Bloodraven, we can also witness him trying to leave this internal conflict behind and – as the show says multiple time – slowly become “something else”. Considering that the very first chapter is a Bran POV chapter, it immediately works in establishing his significance in the story and it gets even more prominent throughout the first book. For example, how Ned had seen him as a bridge that could possibly mend the conflict and animosity between the Starks and the Lannisters and the fact that he was in the centre of the start of the whole conflict of the Seven Kingdoms, or how Martin has dedicated an entire chapter for his post-fall experience, his first vision, which is also the first real chapter (besides the prologue) to foreshadow the main conflict of the story: the war against the White Walkers. In contrast with all this, for example Arya or Sansa chapters are in there more to further the events in Kings Landing leading up to Ned’s demise and just minorly about building up the girls’ characters, considering their importance later in the story.

Now by the end of Dance with Dragons, we are very early in the story of Bran’s journey in the books, we barely know anything about the range of his powers or the character development that he will have, but considering that we get a fairly good amount of information about the Bloodraven and his past we can kinda extrapolate that – like in the TV Series – becoming this all-powerful, ever-seeing varg/greenseer supercombo is going to lead him into loosing everything that makes him Brandon Stark who is the son of Eddard and Catelyn, Prince of Winterfell, the loveable boy who likes climbing walls etc. He has already made very important decisions that is propelling him this way, like sending Rickon off with Osha or making Sam swear to not tell Jon that he’s alive and going beyond the Wall, because he knew all these things would stop him from fulfilling his quest. On the other hand, right now, he’s still a little boy, who would go around asking “are we there yet?” and having a cute little crush on Meera and though we see glimpses of the this more mature and less human Bran more and more he still has a very long way to go and we cannot be sure which of these two conflicting sides will win over the other. But we also know that Hodor’s death scene is book canon, since George R. R. Martin said so, I think it’s safe to assume that Bran will make the same decision to fully embrace his powers after screwing up royally and leave his previous life completely behind as he did on the show.

So, after establishing all this, back to the whole point with the “power” thing, let’s see the ending.

For the record, I think Daenerys’ descend into madness and Jon ending up killing her is book canon as well. As I said, since in the show had decided to dumb down their characters into their cartoon version starting from season 5, the route to that point was way over-simplified, but taking everything into consideration that we know about them in the books, it seems like a very viable thing that can easily happen.

With Daenerys, someone who was established as a little naïve, sometimes unnecessarily cruel but overall just woman corrupted by power and chased into madness and Jon, her counterpart, who yet again would make a right, but morally dubious decision the central message about power would be that there is no human being that is worthy of the throne and thinking about it this way, Drogon burning down the Iron Throne is like the most satisfying moment in the whole saga (assuming – of course – that Drogon is previously established as a complex human-like character both emotionally and intellectually: something the show yet again failed to do).

So, in the end it would make sense, that the character that is the most “not-human” is the best candidate to rule the Kingdom.

Someone on the asoiaf subreddit had directed my attention towards the legend of the Fisher King, particularly, the old Welsh version. I wasn’t familiar with this story, but I looked it up a little bit. The legend is of Welsh origin and is strongly tied into the Arthurian myths and if I had understood correctly, he is traditionally considered as the keeper of the Holy Grail. In this version, which if Wikipedia is to be believed, the oldest version of his story, he is called Brân the Blessed, who has a very tragic story as far as I could gather. He has a bunch of artifacts, for example a cauldron that can resurrect the dead, though imperfectly (they couldn’t speak) which he had given as a wedding gift to the Irish king when he married his sister, Branwen. Branwen had been mistreated by his husband so Bran started a war against Ireland where he was wounded on his legs and poisoned: he had become the “Maimed King”. According to the legend his land had also become a barren wasteland just as his body was consumed by poison. In the end, he told his people to cut his head off, which stops the curse and he still ruled his country as talking oracle head for some 80 years. The legend part comes in that it is said, that he still looks after his lands from where he is buried in London and the ravens at the Tower are his helpers or something which is beside the fact, that is all sorts of cool, you can see the point I’m trying to make here. The Fisher King had become a great ruler after he lost his humanity, which in the case of this story was his body, making him incapable of doing things that the people of this age would have found honourable and the right thing to do: chivalrous acts or siring children and so. (If this was a very butchered version of the story, I meant no disrespect to Welsh people and their legends, but I tried to summarize it as well as I could.)

It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to assume that Martin, who is well-known for using historical events, mainly British ones, as an inspiration would want to use this legend as well. Of course, not literally probably, thought I think it would cool if the one to resurrect Jon would be Bran, who is associated with the old gods (ice) making him a nice contrast to Dany, who is pretty much believed to be the princess who was promised by the red priests and priestesses of Essos (“resurrected” by fire). After all, since Melissandre is a thousand miles away from Castle Black by the time Jon is murdered and the most possible way for Jon to survive is that he wargs into Ghost, it sounds plausible that it will be Bran that guides him somehow back to his actual body. This is of course my speculation, but it would be really awesome nonetheless.

Or who knows, maybe I’m misinterpreting the Fisher King thing, and this legend is supposed to allure to Bran the Builder or Eddard’s brother Bran Stark, but for me, just like for Old Nan, all Brandons are the same.

But even without this convoluted analogy, the Bran the Broken endgame still stands on its own.

Because the other, more allegorical interpretation of A Song of Ice and Fire is that the White Walkers are a metaphor for climate change. While everyone is occupied by their petty struggle for power, the real threat is ignored, and it grows rapidly. The only way to defeat it – by the way, this was also a point that was lost in adaptation by the TV show – is that the people of the world put aside their differences and work together to stop the inevitable destruction.

I don’t know if that will be book canon or not, but in this interpretation, the fact that the Children of the Forest created the White Walkers makes perfect sense even with the fact, that there is no Night King in the books (thus no convenient hive-mind plot device, thank Goodness! My guess is, actually, that the solution will be one of the magical horns we keep hearing about). The Children, who had been closely associated with the imagery of nature, had been hunted ruthlessly by humankind, literally cutting down their sacred trees, killing their environment, so in response, they created the White Walkers, just like, I guess, the Earth tries to “fight back” with extreme weather conditions. In this sense, Bran, who is chosen as the sort of champion of the Children ending up in a position of power kind of indicates a very hopeful outcome, if the right thing is put into focus point.

After all, this story is still a fantasy story in its core, and George R.R. Martin himself said so. In a fantasy story – however gruesome and realistic it is – needs to be a message of hope. And I think this would also tie up nicely with everything we knew about the world of ice and fire so far: in some way, we get a really sad ending when your heroes (Jon and Dany) are not really heroes, but at the same time, we get a promise of hope, that mankind might still be salvageable. Thus, a bittersweet ending.

“But this what we had seen in the show,” you might ask at this point. “If this is a satisfying ending, why I hated all this in the TV last Sunday?”

Well, the answer is incredibly simple, and it can lead back as far as Season 5.

Is it because of the butchering of the characters I had mentioned earlier? Partially, but no.

Is it because they ignored important world building of Essos and its politics in order to speed along the fanservice moment of Tyrion  I-use-complicated-words-so-people-wont-realize-that-I-am-talking-bullshit Lannister and Daenerys I-will-only-talk-solely-in-one-liner-catchphrases-so-it-could-be-used-in-a-cool-trailer Targaeryen having the dumbest chit-chat ever? Fustrating? Yes. But no.

Is it because they sacrificed one of the Seven Kingdoms and its incredibly interesting storyline with highly complicated political issues and very intriguing power players in order to Jaime and Bronn have a bro-trip to Feminaziland? No, it was horrifying, but not even that. This all could have been forgiven if repelled in later seasons. The unchangeable mistake hasn’t been these ones.

It’s because they dropped Bran’s storyline for an ENTIRE SEASON.

If him becoming king really is endgame, and not just later decided to bring into the story as shock value (ehhem, like with Arya), they must have known this when they were developing season 5.

Sure, I understand the decision from the showbusiness aspect: it would probably wouldn’t have been that interesting of a storyline and would have required a lot of boring universe building. Because it should have explored the Bloodraven’s character more, giving more gravitas and foreshadowing for the mistakes that Bran would make.

In fact, if they would have included a little trial-and-error process, wherein Bran explores the fact that even though he could interact with people through his visions, he cannot change the outcome of it, for like trying to change things that he considered bad in the past. For example, he might have caused Aerys’ “burn them all” fixation, when he tried to stop him from murdering his uncle and grandfather. Popular fan theory is that Bran sort of goes through the history of Westeros to ready the land for the Long Night: like warging into Bran the Builder and building the Wall and Winterfell, some even say that he could easily be the one who established the prophecy of light in the first place making him into Rhllor. Of course, these theories are very far-fetched and unrealistic and in order for this to work, they would have to establish many things from historical events of Westeros through boring scenes of conversation. The only reason I would have put somewhat similar scenes into the season so it would be more explicit that even though Bran knows about things, he cannot change of the outcome of the events. This way, it would have been understandable that he doesn’t try and stop Danaerys burning down Kings Landing. The cultivating moment to all this would still have been the Hold the Door scene, which kinda meant to establish this trope, but failed spectacularly, because by this point, no one in the audience cared about Bran. He had become a completely unrelatable character who “didn’t do shit”. The emotional response that Hodor’s death scene evoked in the audience was solely for the fact that he was innocent and good, yet he had to live his life in complete misery and die a horrible death for someone else’s mistake. The lesson that Bran and the audience was meant to learn from this scene was completely lost, because Bran’s emotional response by killing the last renmants of who he used to be wasn’t a moment with proper build-up. The showrunners had put Bran to the sidelines while trying to give lines to the people around him to maintain his significance (like BR telling him, that he will be waiting for the Night King and such), yet not giving him anything to do. They fell into the usual pit of writing a character that was too strong for them to handle: so they decided to only get him of a shelf when he was needed as a plot device.

All these things makes me really sad and angry as a fantasy fan, because the creators of the show have been given a once in a lifetime opportunity when they actually had the budget and resources to connect the genre with a mainstream audience and actually making fantasy into pop culture instead of a sub-culture. In the wake of the success of Game of Thrones a lot of good fantasy novels’ filming rights had been sold and was put in development, but while failing to end the show properly, they made this into a hazardous business for big companies yet again and who knows how many of these productions will we actually see?

To summarize things, in the books, where the defeat of the White Walkers will be a much more complicated issue will have more room for Bran to explore and use his powers for good and I’m absolutely positive he will and I honestly hope people won’t hate Martin if he does end as King of Westeros.

I’m not saying that this is the only plausible ending, I just wanted to point out that there’re many indicators that point to this endgame and it’s not a bad one, despite the fact that the TV show was a huge let-down and I sincerely hope that many people will give Winds of Winter and the whole fantasy genre another chance to impress them.