#perpetrator: julia
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
5/15/2025:
0 episodes since Drawfee last referenced Cats (2019)
4 episodes since Drawfee last referenced Everytime We Touch (2005)

(Response under the cut)
P.S. Showing the blog onscreen was quite funny, but it is, admittedly, also meaningful to me. If you'll allow me a moment of mushiness: Drawfee and its community have been supports to me through the past few years of my life, and I am incredibly grateful. On days where I am homebound, Drawfee keeps me company. I remember times I've had to stay home from important events and have thought to myself "at least there will be a Drawfee episode today." So jokes aside, if you're reading this, Drawfee, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for all that you do.
(Turns the bit-o-meter back to "all bits.")
Also, David, fuck you, I think?
#episode: Redrawing Full Manga Pages Based ONLY on the Panels and Text#0 episodes without cats incident#perpetrator: julia#4 episodes without cascada incident#drawfee
259 notes
·
View notes
Text
mainstream anti-violence movements will always lose me not only for being cozied up with the carceral state, but for the beliefs they perpetuate about abuse and abusers. theres this belief by and large that victims and abusers are two different breeds of people and that the labels never overlap whatsoever which is crazy to me considering how many people in prison for violent crimes right now are themselves victims of some sort of violence. this is obviously not to say that survivors are destined to become abusers Or that abusive behaviour can be excused away, but damn if it doesnt feel weird and frustrating to have conversations with people who not only have this victim/abuser mindset but also (as julia serano says) the prey/predator mindset. where does victimhood end? where does perpetrator begin? where do we abandon hope of change? why do we believe carceral violence is the only protection? and finally, who benefits from all these beliefs?
#anyways hiiii im back briefly#idk i had this on my mind we were talking about something similar in class and it got my brain thinking
128 notes
·
View notes
Text
So, a third survivor has come forward, and she took great care choosing the outlet, it seems. I really liked this episode (only one I've listened to from the podcast so far), bc it really centres her, not him.
Claire's amazing. The way she's making sure to mention that autistic ppl are more likely to experience SA than to become a perpetrator - she didn't have to do that, it's not her responsibility. She seems really sweet and strong. And the host seems to be a really lovely person as well, and they give her plenty of time to choose her words and just really...talk.
EDIT: In the meantime, an additional two women, Caroline and Julia, have come forward and talked to Tortoise Media, the original outlet that broke the stories of Scarlett and K.
118 notes
·
View notes
Text
More thoughts on supporting GO S3
I will always be grateful to GO for giving me comfort in troubling times, but now I find it difficult to support a new season of the series that mainly benefits an alleged perpetrator.
Five credible sexual assault allegations against Neil Gaiman and he's still capable of successfuly releasing another project under his name. Season 3 being released helps him to keep his status as a lucrative creator in the entertainment industry and this helps him to conserve the power that has allowed him to get away with it for so long. His PR team has been making a great work burying the news about the allegations and sadly people hyping Good Omens season 3, without mentioning the allegations, inadvertendly helped on this as well.
However, my opinion will not determine the future of the season. We could assume that Amazon has already invested a lot in the production to just abandon it, so the second best thing would be to ask Amazon to fire Gaiman, he could secretly keep working on the series and the scripts were mainly written by him (the actors and everyone involved will voice Gaiman's words, ugh), and the series will be promoted undeniably mentioning him as one of the creators (I'm sorry for the victims having to hear people praising his name everywhere once again :c), but luckily the news about the allegations would also spread further, more people would come to know about the dangers of Gaiman's predatory behaviour and he would see some consequences.
I still think that cancelling the season would be the best case scenario, but firing him resoundingly and making the reasons for his dismissal heard far and wide might be a reasonable middle ground.
This is just my opinion, but I understand that at the end of the day it's an individual decision whether or not to support the third season.
I'm just going to ask everyone to please reflect on the power Gaiman gains from the projects that are released under his name (not just financially).
Thanks to everyone who has spoken up about the SA accusations even if it hurt to learn that someone who helped create such beloved stories ended up doing so much damage as well.
Here there is a great post that presents actions that fans can take in support of firing Gaiman, still having Season 3, and not ignoring that the allegations exist.
(Petitions, extra steps, etc.)
Thanks a lot to the creator of the card!
Update:
It has been confirmed that both Gaiman and his own production company are out of the project, thanks to everyone who supported his dismissal! [Erratum below]
The changes made for the GO final serve as a message to the creators and everyone abusing of their power:
If you harm people, it will not be without consequences for you and the things you profit from financially and professionally.
Power to the victims. They were brave enough to share their stories. You will never be forgotten.
Scarlett, K, Claire, Caroline, Julia, Courtnee...
Still sceptical about supporting the victims? I recommend reading:
Staying neutral until Neil Gaiman is convicted by the courts?
Falling Safes (I very much recommend reading this one)
Here there is a great summary of the available sources (Podcasts links, transcripts, etc.): Credits for the round up to Muccamukk.
Thank you to all those who continue to speak out about the allegations and do not let the voices of the victims fall into oblivion.
Update 2:
Erratum
The situation about the current business relationship between Gaiman and Amazon has more specific and complex details better detailed in the image below (credits and thanks to the author of the post).

Source
67 notes
·
View notes
Text
I don't know if this was the intent or not, but there's something about how the majority of the 'violent' Fears we hear in TMA (ie the Slaughter, the Hunt) are primarily experienced through women. It's the women who are avatars-- Daisy Tonner for the Hunt (or Julia, even) Jude Perry/Agnes for the Desolation, hell even Melanie as a baby avatar for the Slaughter. And that feels--right, to me. Men are often perpetrators of violence, yes. But they don't often Fear it. It's the women who Fear violence, who walk thru the world knowing it might be done to them at any point. It's the women who are forced to take that fear and turn it outwards, to do violence before it is done unto you. And honestly, it has me rooting for them more often than not. Yes, she's doing a horrible thing. It's not right. But do we really expect women to succumb to the Fear, to go quietly? Absolutely not.
#the magnus archives#tma#just thoughts#we support women's wrongs#also daisy and melanie are two of my favorite charcters can you tell?#daisy tonner
19 notes
·
View notes
Text
BBC and Netflix release first-look at forthcoming drama The Bombing of Pan Am 103
“This was an act of war, and now we are to find out who we’re fighting.”
Six-part series shares the untold story of the Scottish and American investigators who sought to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The untold story of the Scots-US investigation into the bombing of a passenger flight over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, and the devastating effect it had on the community and the families who lost loved ones.
The BBC and Netflix have released first-look pictures of The Bombing of Pan Am 103, the forthcoming drama based on the true story of the bombing of a passenger flight over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 and the quest to bring the perpetrators to justice.
On 21 December 1988, flight Pan Am 103 was en route from Heathrow to JFK when a bomb exploded in its hold over Lockerbie, killing 270 people, including 43 British citizens and 190 Americans. It was the worst-ever terror attack on British soil and the first major act of terrorism against US citizens.

Made by World Productions, with lead writer Jonathan Lee, the six-part series follows the untold story of the Scots-US investigation into the attack and the devastating effect it had on the small town and the families who lost loved ones. From the initial exhaustive search for evidence on the ground in Scotland, via the US and Malta to the trial at Camp Zeist in 2000, the series leads up to the upcoming new trial in the US. The Bombing of Pan Am 103 also highlights the human impact on the investigators, the families and the Lockerbie community as it sought to rebuild and connect with bereaved families around the world.
The cast includes Connor Swindells (SAS Rogue Heroes, Sex Education), Patrick J. Adams (Suits, A League of Their Own), Merritt Wever (Unbelievable, Severance), Peter Mullan (Ozark, Payback), Tony Curran (Mary & George, Mayflies), Douglas Hodge (The Great, Catastrophe), Eddie Marsan (The Power, Ray Donovan), Nicholas Gleaves (After The Flood, The Rising) Lauren Lyle (Karen Pirie, Vigil), Andrew Rothney (The Undeclared War, Traces), Phyllis Logan (Downton Abbey, Guilt), Cora Bissett (Annika, Shetland), Kevin McKidd (Greys Anatomy, Six Four), Parker Sawyers (Spy/Master, P-Valley), James Harkness (The Sixth Commandment, The Victim), Molly Geddes (Dinosaur, Where We Stop), Khalid Laith (Vigil, Cobra), and Amanda Drew (The Gold, Wolf).


Alongside acclaimed novelist and screenwriter Jonathan Lee as lead writer, two episodes are written by Scottish screenwriter Gillian Roger Park. The 6 x 60 series is produced by World Productions (United, the story of the Munich air disaster, and Anne, the drama about Hillsborough mother and justice campaigner Anne Williams) in association with MGM Television (The Devil’s Confession: The Lost Eichmann Tapes, Fargo) and Night Train Media (Rogue Agent, Catch me a Killer). The Bombing of Pan Am 103 was initially developed by MGM Television and Night Train Media.
The Bombing of Pan Am 103 is coming soon to BBC iPlayer and BBC One in the UK, followed by Netflix globally. The producer is Julia Stannard (United, War and Peace, Anne) and Michael Keillor (Chimerica, Roadkill, Best Interests) is the director.


The project was developed by filmmaker Adam Morane-Griffiths whose research includes extensive interviews with Scottish police officers and representatives from United States investigative agencies, many of whom have never previously shared their stories. Producers and writers also spoke to many of the families and loved ones of the victims. Their stories revealed the impact the bombing had on their lives and the heroic activism that followed - resulting in lasting change to the way authorities approached security, safety and duty of care towards those involved in mass fatality incidents.
Filming took place on location in Scotland, Malta and Toronto.
The executive producers are Simon Heath and Roderick Seligman for World Productions; Steve Stark and Stacey Levin for Toluca Pictures, Adam Morane-Griffiths, Sara Curran, Herbert L. Kloiber for Night Train Media, Jonathan Lee, Michael Keillor; and Gaynor Holmes for the BBC. The co-executive producer is Joe Hill. Mona Qureshi and Manda Levin are leading for Netflix. The Bombing of Pan Am 103 is produced by World Productions, an ITV Studios company, in association with MGM Television and Night Train Media.
Notes
The Bombing of Pan Am 103 was previously announced under the title of Lockerbie.

Watch #TheBombingOfPanAm103 on #iPlayer from 18 May #PanAm103 #Lockerbie
Posted 2nd May 2025
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
This is not a book review of A Little Life
So I read A Little Life and while I was gripped, I did not love it and the further away I get from reading, the more annoyed I about a few narrative choices. Some of them are what everyone else feels pissed off about but I have two that I keep coming back to that just seem so fucking unlikely to me: spoilers ahead.
Annoyed by the lack of women characters that were anything other than accessories, even Julia who was just kinda there. Not because I think Jude would be saved by women's inherent trauma-healing abilities or something, but because it's just really fucking unlikely? Also unlikely that no one he knew was also a survivor of some form of abuse and might have had a flicker of recognition, might have said something to him or to his friends?
Harold's narrative at the end in which he lists off the litany of people who died. Really pissed about Andy and Richard especially. Felt very cheap.
The embolism was so dumb. Just straight stupid. Difficult and unreliable besides being absurd.
I'm not annoyed as much as some about the insane wealth aspect. Jude worked really hard on his isolation and for this story to work he had to have the means to shape his life into a kind of bespoke safe space so he very rarely had to do things he did not want to do including Talk About It (until not talking about it got in the way of keeping Willem and even then it was not to help himself but to manipulate).
Ok, so. The two things: hearing survivor stories and the law.
Everyone was trying so hard to get Jude to talk to a therapist. Did anyone think that maybe what he needed was to listen to someone else? Is the point supposed to be that Willem is such a dunce that he did not consider doing some reading and maybe sharing what he's read? Did neither of them ever consume media of any kind because CSA and its effects on survivors is, while not exactly everywhere, it is very much out there and kind of difficult to avoid in the west. Fairly sure Willem might have done a film or a play? A NYT bestselling book everyone read? Representations on this theme in art shows? In music? In the news and in documentaries? There's no way Jude's bubble was that airtight. There's no way Andy was not talking to his own therapist about Jude, about his refusal to talk, or about how to get through to a stubborn self-destroyer such as he.
Jude did not Talk About It in a therapeutic sense at any point and that's emphasised as a thing that he regrets, that he feels he should have done so with Ana or around then, and that he thinks it is too late now. But I find it very difficult to believe he could have gone 50 years of his life without hearing, even incidentally, from other survivors of CSA. The sense that he was singular in his experience, that he was somehow meant for the abuse, that the cause of it was some inherent thing about his own person is common among survivors. It is also horseshit and easy to disprove with examples. It's also something I felt I wanted to confront him with myself when he was defending his refusals: do you think other children who have suffered similar also deserved it? Do you think they were not told they were made for it? Do you think CSA is that rare? Do you have a theory of mind for the perpetrators and a notion that they chose to hurt a child, and that it is wrong to do so (yes, even you)?
Also, he studied law. He did not specialise in criminal law (or seem remotely interested in it) but can someone studying law actually avoid learning about laws surrounding CSA almost completely? No triggers for him there? No thoughts on justice regarding other children? No pause in his self-flagellation to consider for one moment that maybe he is not to blame but the perpetrators? No? Just never came up anywhere?
????????
Anyway, it was beautifully written in places and I enjoyed the tender odes to love, life, family and friendship.
#also why do people like NYC it sounds like hell on earth#i've untagged this because of course this book has a fandom
24 notes
·
View notes
Text
In the years since Whipping Girl was published, the term “trans-misogyny” has taken on a life of its own, and people now use it in ways that I never intended. Specifically, I used the term to describe how the existence of societal misogyny/traditional sexism greatly informs how people perceive, interpret, or treat gender-variant people who seemingly “want to be female” or “want to be feminine” (regardless of their actual identity). However, many people nowadays use the word “trans-misogyny” in an identity-based manner to refer to any and all forms of discrimination targeting trans women. According to this latter usage, some would argue that people who identify as men, or male crossdressers, or drag queens, cannot possibly experience trans-misogyny—a close reading of Whipping Girl will reveal that I very much disagree with this premise. (See Chapter 48 of this book for a detailed explanation regarding why identity-based views of marginalization tend to be inaccurate and exclusive.)
--Julia Serano (emphasis mine)
this doesn't mean that Serano thinks that TME/TMA are bad terms (she doesn't use them herself but finds that there is a core justifiable thought there)
compare also her essay on cissexism (a term that sadly seems to have fallen out of vocabulary) and the difference between "decentering the dominant group" and "reverse discourse":
In other words, cissexism is part of an overarching system that (along with other forms of sexism) works to keep all people in their place. Thus, any person can face cissexism.
Take, for instance, an otherwise cisgender man who never had a gender-variant thought in his life. If he were to suddenly, on a whim, decide to wear a dress to work, he would very likely face cissexist ridicule and harassment on his way to his job, and possibly even get fired from his job as a result. If an otherwise cisgender woman who never had a gender-variant thought in her life decided that she was tired of plucking all the hairs on her chin and upper lip (which a considerable number of women experience), she would surely face cissexist reactions and comments once her facial hair grows out. In fact, cissexism (or at least the threat of it) is the force behind both the low level gender anxiety faced by cisgender people who worry that they will be perceived as insufficiently feminine or masculine if they do “the wrong thing,” as well as the more severe forms of gender policing and punishment experienced by those of us who more regularly or blatantly transgress gender norms.
By no means does this decentering the binary perspective suggest that all people are equally hurt by societal cissexism. Clearly, some of us grapple with cissexism on a routine basis, while other people experience it infrequently and/or far less severely. But the decentering approach does encourage us to challenge all expressions of cissexism, regardless of who the perpetrator or target is.
and so I don't think we have to throw away the terms TMA/TME entirely, but we do need to use the terms in a way that doesn't suggest that only people with certain identities can be TMA; i think a cis man who wears dresses and skirts as his usual attire could very well be TMA depending on the reaction of the society he's in!
41 notes
·
View notes
Text
unfortunately i do like the coffin of andy and leyley. however! i'm not one of those weirdos that ships andrew and ashley together, and you shouldn't be either! anyway more thoughts on my stance below the cut
i'm not a fan of the fact that the incest is there - i understand why, as another way that ashley can manipulate andrew's emotions and affections, and it's supported as an interpretation in the text. but their relationship could still be just as toxic and codependent as it is in-game without that being a canonized route. the overtones and subtext will be there regardless, and i do view it as part of andrew's character that he has a subconscious attraction to ashley, but there are other ways for their dynamic to change other than canonizing and romanticizing the romantic undertones of their relationship.
i understand that it's fictional and that it's also not the only morally reprehensible thing that the graves siblings do in the game. however, the incestuous dynamic between them only manifests on the route where they're both still alive and both coming to more of an understanding with one another. while, yes, neither route is a particularly good one for either of them, the questionable route being an offshoot of the burial route (the route where ashley continues to get everything she wants out of andrew) inherently paints the dynamic as a better solution than ashley and andrew getting their comeuppance for their crimes.
i am aware that not every story needs a moral backbone - some of the best stories have reprehensible things happen in them and their perpetrators never see retribution. however, when people outside of those stories read them, they affect reality and their perception of it. all good stories do. no matter what, fiction does affect reality and the way we interact with it, because fiction is inherently based in reality - even sci-fi, fantasy, speculative fiction.
people actively shipping and glorifying the incestuous dynamic between andrew and ashley affects the perception of incestuous dynamics in the real world for those people. ignoring the manipulative tactics that led to that route leads to more tolerance of those manipulative tactics. even when people claim that they know better, it still affects their perception, even the slightest bit. and people who aren't aware of the context seeing their incestuous relationship being glorified will assume the context makes the situation more palatable than it actually is.
ashley's been really good at manipulation thus far, it stands to reason that she could probably figure out a way to keep andrew along without resorting to incest. he's already pretty clearly devoted to her as an older brother, she could keep using their familial relationship as a means of manipulating him, or hell, eventually if andrew ends up fighting back there could be a route where she kills him and ends up using another person later, this time with romantic and/or sexual motivations. i've seen suggestions that it could even end up being julia, which would both make sense and add to the fucked up nature of ashley's motivations and manipulation.
andrew's underlying attraction to his sister could be refuted more openly and clearly. his reactions to other people noticing their dynamic could be more overtly against the idea. he could start trying to distance himself from her as a means of putting a boundary. he could be more forceful with setting up that boundary with her when she teases him about it. all of the reactions in-game lead people to assume that andrew wants this, potentially even more than ashley, and that because of that, it's okay because they're "consenting" to it.
there is no consent in this relationship - ashley has been manipulating him since they were kids, their power dynamic is uneven and leads to ashley taking advantage of his emotions, and ashley's been essentially grooming him into seeing her as the only woman in his life for years at this point. not saying andrew is without fault here, but putting myself in that position, if i had a younger sister who threatened me for a murder i was an unwilling accomplice to, all because she was jealous that i was starting to have a life of my own with people that aren't her, i would have felt similarly helpless.
21 notes
·
View notes
Text
4/23/2024:
0 episodes since Drawfee last referenced Cats (2019)
21 episodes since Drawfee last referenced Everytime We Touch (2005) (new record!)
#episode: Drawing the Users of Randomly Generated Wacky Gadgets#still no cascada (not the stream edit yet) but we're on a cats streak now#drawfee#0 episodes without cats incident#perpetrator: julia#21 episodes without cascada incident
274 notes
·
View notes
Text
Julia Serano at Switch Hitter:
Back in 2021, I penned the essay Transgender People, Bathrooms, and Sexual Predators: What the Data Say. It is a response to claims that we supposedly pose a threat to women and girls in sex-segregated spaces, and it also tackles the related anti-trans talking point that we are supposedly “grooming” or “sexualizing” children. The first part of the essay reviews numerous studies that together show that trans people are victims (not perpetrators) of harassment and abuse in public restrooms. The rest of the piece delves into the long history of the “sexual predator” stereotype and how it has been wielded against other marginalized groups (including LGB people during Anita Bryant’s infamous “Save Our Children” campaign of the 1970s). Last November, when it seemed clear that the GOP was likely to introduce a federal trans bathroom ban, I thought it would be useful to adapt that essay into a YouTube video so that it could reach even more people. That video just came out! You can watch it below—please share widely!
Julia Serano expertly debunks the transphobic “bathroom predator” myth which falsely insinuates that trans women/girls are a “threat” to women’s/girl’s spaces.
YouTube video:
youtube
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Walker Episode Bracket
"Blinded by the Light" took "Cry Uncle" by a landslide! But how will it fare against 3x11, "Past is Prologue"?
In this episode, Cordell lets Cassie in on what he and Julia discovered in the last episode. Cassie is miffed that he's trusting Julia so wholeheartedly and suggests checking in on some of the odd deaths first. This leads to him confronting the widow of one of his old Marine buddies and experiencing some painful flashbacks. After mostly confirming Julia's theory true, they decide to go check in on the last remaining Marine, Tommy, to make sure he hasn't been taken in by Grey Flag as well. Unfortunately, they get there too late and Tommy is nearly dead at the hands of a Grey Flag assailant. Cassie goes chasing after the perpetrator while Cordell stays by his Marine brother's side. Cassie's chase, unfortunately, ends in the death of the man who killed Tommy, but it does yield evidence that forces them to call James and let him in on what they know.
In the meantime, it looks like Trey has found a new job opportunity with some shady individuals that give him an odd "test" to confirm if he's right for the job. Just when we fear that he's going to the dark side, we learn that this whole mess was actually a setup for him to go on an undercover mission.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Stella and Liam are working on setting up the horse rescue. Bonham isn't exactly pleased that his son is leaving the family business but, after some thought and talking with Abby, he's mostly just happy to see his son so passionate about something again, even if it wasn't the path he would've chosen for Liam.
taglist: @ihavepointysticks
#walker#walker episode bracket#poll#fandom fun#fandom event#s03e10#blinded by the light#s03e11#past is prologue
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
About the 90-minute episode
The word "deserve" sounds so strange in this context...


It's sad and bizarre to see this situation reduced to:
Satirical poll ofc.
I understand that fans are sad to have a shortened version of the ending, (it's okay to feel sad about unexpected changes), but let's not forget that the fact that Amazon did not ignore the sexual assault allegations against Neil Gaiman and made changes is an important and great decision. There were real lives affected by Gaiman's actions.
It goes beyond the fictional characters. For those who want closure (in the form of a TV adaptation), Aziraphale and Crowley will have one, and all without involving Gaiman's active presence, which would have endangered the people working on the set. That the series was made unchanged would also have benefited an alleged rapist financially (indeed, he will continue to benefit from being one of the creators, but the profits are now significantly reduced) and, of course, would have helped maintain his status in the entertainment industry despite the accusations.
The changes made for the GO final serve as a message to the creators: If you harm people, it will not be without consequences for you and the things you profit from financially and professionally.
Power to the [alleged] victims. They were brave enough to share their stories. You will never be forgotten. You are the ones who deserve better:
Scarlett, K, Claire, Caroline, Julia, Courtnee...
Thanks to the fans who express their sadness, but do not forget and acknowledge the important reasons behind the changes to the final.
Edit: Reading this again, I want to make it clear it wasn't my intention to tell fans how to feel. I feel empathy for fans being upset about these changes as well, I just wanted to throw light on the reasons for such changes and their importance. Fans shouldn't be harassed for expressing their concern around the series they like. However, I keep mentioning the SA allegations because they are also a crucial part of the conversation about the changes to the final season.
33 notes
·
View notes
Note
Oh Eugenie has a podcast
Princess Eugenie has launched the second series of her podcast Floodlight, which aims to raise awareness around issues of modern slavery and human trafficking.
The podcast is presented by The Anti-Slavery Collective, the nonprofit organisation that Eugenie co-founded with her friend Julia de Boinville in 2017 after a visit to a safehouse for trafficked women in India.
The ten-part series sees the pair speaking to a range of guests including survivors, activists and lawmakers, with the first episode featuring former UK Prime Minister Theresa May. Other guests include British NFL player Efe Obada who was trafficked to the UK as a child, and actor Marisol Nichols who works with law enforcement to catch perpetrators.
"Across ten episodes, Julia and I have been lucky enough to speak to some incredible people who are campaigning to end modern slavery in all its forms,” Eugenie said. “Listeners will learn how this is very much a hidden crime; and touches all sectors of society. Together, we can do something about this. Join us as we bring together change-makers and raise awareness in the fight against modern slavery."
https://www.podpod.com/article/1844640/princess-eugenie-launches-second-series-anti-slavery-podcast
I stand corrected.

3 notes
·
View notes
Text
I was asked for recommendations because of this post, and here are a handful:
The Wicker Man (1973): The quintessential folk horror viewing experience, this movie is exactly as good as everybody always says it is. The soundtrack alone is worth the watch. Has a Wonderland-esque quality, where the main character is thrust into a world where everything he thinks he knows is turned topsy-turvy, and everybody around him seems to be determined to irritate and confuse him into an early grave. If you haven't been spoiled for the ending yet, try not to be before you give it a watch.
House / Hausu (1977): This movie was made in Japan, so most people call it Hausu, but the title card styles it as 'House' in English and has a voiceover that says "House!" at the same time. This is a surrealistic, almost cartoony psychedelic trip of a movie, where characters are named after the archetypes they fall into and special effects are added with hand-drawn animation onto film. Starting out like a parody of slice-of-life high school dramas and quickly getting weird with it, it could be silly and campy, and in some places it is, but I also found it creepy and psychologically unsettling in a way that sneaks up on you and gets right under your skin.
Halloween (1978): John Carpenter's original is a classic for a reason. Unlike many entries in the inescapable trend for masked killers cutting up co-eds that it inspired, this one is a moody, atmospheric, tense suspense thriller broken up by sharp, sudden explosions of violence. This is one of my all-time favourite horror movies and one that I go back to over and over.
Suspiria (1977): This movie is a candy-coloured confection of spun-sugar broken glass, cotton-candy razor wire, and raspberry-syrup blood. The aggressive use of the Goblins' creepily enchanting theme song nearly made me turn this one off in the first few minutes, but I stuck with it and I'm so glad I did. This is one you want to watch if you're looking for a Grimm fairy tale updated into the modern day (in 1977), built around a series of baroque and dramatically stagey murders.
The Haunting of Julia / Full Circle (1977): 1977 was, apparently, a good year for horror. The Haunting of Julia, or Full Circle, depending on the country of release, is a psychological ghost story with an absolutely gorgeous set and soundtrack. Is Julia really being haunted by a ghost, or just her own guilt? By the end of the movie, you may still not know for sure. This one is truly a horror movie for those of us who grew up on the 90s A Little Princess and The Secret Garden movies. (Just bear in mind that the abdominal thrust manoeuvre for helping choking victims, popularised by Dr. Henry Heimlich, wasn't common public knowledge until after an info campaign in the early 80s.)
Let's Scare Jessica To Death (1971): This is such a surreal nightmare of a movie that in the end, you may end up questioning whether any of the violence actually happened, or whether its perpetrator was really who it seemed to be. Don't go into this one for the plot (it doesn't make a whole lot of sense), go into it for the imagery and the slow ominous rising dread (and the possibility of ancient immortal vampires).
I've also got Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970) and Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) on my list to watch.
There's something about seventies horror that reminds me of live theatre, actually. The sets and costumes are often cheap, and when it comes to period pieces, more 'inspired by' than accurate; the makeup is big and visible; even when the effects are really good, the blood is usually unnaturally red. The acting tends toward the broad and stagey.
And yet, it's also clear that realism is not the goal. Rather, the movie works to draw you in to a unified fiction, to get you to share in its nightmare. The best seventies horror I've seen has a dreamlike, Vaseline-lensed quality, a sense that it doesn't matter whether or not everything that happens in the movie is likely or even possible in real life. We've stepped outside of real life into a self-contained bubble with its own logic and its own sense, a dark fairy tale where the corpses of young girls might transmute into hares or eternally hungry floating heads, or the night of All Hallows might summon a stalking, unkillable masked evil from the past, or a ballet studio might be entirely controlled by witches. Even the lowest-budget, most exploitative Hammer flicks don't escape the touch of that dreaminess, that velvety, enfolding unreality. The movie suggests a world, and we, if we are wise, gladly succumb to the power of that suggestion.
#to watch#if you are at all a fan of 70s horror you've probably seen most of these#but then if you are a fan of 70s horror my post is probably not your first exposure to 70s horror#was thinking about it and I think Francis Ford Coppola's Twixt (2011) actually has more in common with 70s horror for these reasons#than it does with anything else that came out contemporaneously with it#which may be part of why it bombed so hard#(however. I love it.#and despite it not being 70s horror I do also recommend it if you like 70s horror)
1K notes
·
View notes
Note
So...since "The Interstellar Song Contest" is out, how do you think each of your OCs (especially The Manipulator) gonna react when they learn who Mrs. Flood is?
Ooh, excellent question! Here we go. . .
Alex: So, since we currently don't know the identity of Alex's Time Lord ancestor, I'm gonna have to be vague here. Is the Rani the Time Lord ancestor in question?! Not saying, but I will say that the Rani does have thoughts on the matter and is very interested in just how Alex became a genetically engineered Time Lady. Alex, for her part, will have heard of the Rani from the Doctor and what she knows is more than enough to make her wary of the Time Lady. . .
Esme: Esme will have already dealt with the Master by this point and will probably be a bit exasperated at having to deal with another Time Lord renegade. Also, as with Alex, the Rani is very interested in the altering to her body the Sisters of the Water did to Esme, which may not be a good thing for Esme. . .
Iliana/The Manipulator: So, this is going to be the most interesting reaction, as Iliana and the Rani are actually cousins. They were pretty close before the Time War happened and actually perpetrated schemes against the Doctor. Iliana was convinced her cousin was dead, so she'll be shocked/excited to see her again, but not so much that she's plotting against the Doctor. To Iliana's mind, they are the only Time Lords left and should try to get along, so expect a pretty angsty reunion there.
Abby: Not sure, but probably not thrilled to be going up against another renegade Time Lord.
Lulu: Pretty much the same as Abby.
Shareen: Mostly she'll just be happy it's not the Master who's returned, lol, but she'll definitely be wanting to beat the Rani with her baseball bat before everything's over.
Ava: Same as Shareen in that she's just relieved that it's not the Master they're contending with this time, lol.
Libby: Not sure, but as this OC is also a Time Lady, she will definitely have heard of the Rani and probably be pretty leery towards her, while also a bit excited that another Time Lord is alive.
Rachel: Much like Shareen, she will very much want to beat the Rani with a baseball bat, lol. I can definitely see her saying something like, "Why is it that the only Time Lords that managed to survive everything that's happened on Gallifrey are the batshit crazy ones?!" Cue the Doctor getting offended, lol.
Lizzy: Definitely wary of the Rani after having encountered and dealt with the Master not too long ago.
Julia: She will have heard of the Rani and be definitely wary towards her, but I could also see her trying to appeal to the Rani on her and the Doctor being the last Time Lords around and making peace. Not that it would work, lol, but at least she gave it a try!
#kirvanessa27#alex locke#alex locke series#esme grigori#the bitten chronicles#iliana/the manipulator#the manipulation manuals#abby larchmont#abby larchmont series#lulu tyler#cosmically in tune series#shareen costello#shareen costello series#ava whitlock#stranger than fiction series#libby/the librarian#rachel williams#rachel williams series#lizzy savage#julia waterfield
1 note
·
View note