#represent society as a whole‚ one of the only parts of the film that doesn't quite work). a surfeit of great brit character actors all pull

[alatismeni-theitsa]

https://www.tumblr.com/alatismeni-theitsa/750276116941586432/httpsxcomcorenlavolpestatus17879717550276120

Hello! About this subject, I wondered if you thought that having poc representation is inherently incompatible with the desire to create fiction surrounding Greek mythology? Would it be impossible for the game Hades to includes different skin tones without being disrespectful of Greek’s culture, in your opinion? This subject if pretty though, because well, the people making the game are from an independent studio and included people of color in the game because they wanted more people to feel represented (since some of them are poc and didn’t get to have representation growing up). But if it’s wasn’t compatible with the culture and Greek mythology, then maybe the game wouldn’t have been made in the first place, or not in the same way…

I want to hear more Greek people’s opinion on the matter, if it doesn’t bother you :)

Hello, thank you for the ask! The answer might be a bit long but... you know me :p

For more explanations on proper representation check here.

I feel like the wording makes the situation look a little bit like an issue of "Greeks VS People of Color", when in reality the situation is "White American (WASP, specifically) ideals VS Everyone Else". In the West Greeks are still the "ethnics" so it would be a mistake to equate the Greek heritage with the ever-present, influential WASP culture of the US.

I mention this because it's the job your country's media to offer representation to minorities, not the job of any foreign gods and heroes. Greek culture is not The System, it doesn't represent the US culture. Ergo, to put it crudely, it's not the Greek culture's problem that the US media companies and the audience are biased against PoC.

The Greek culture and history are what they are and, truth is, non-Mediterranean looks are not frequent in ancient Greek stories and societies. The US should adapt accordingly. The US is a superpower driven by the consumerism of its residents. Find a way to center PoC that will not ignore or erase parts of other cultures.

(And find the courage to treat Greek culture as the foreign culture that it is and not Americanize it as much as possible. And cast a few Greek peeps every now and then, I promise, the universe won't collapse.)

There are plenty of other opportunities for minorities to get jobs and roles in literally any other type of media outside of the Greek-myth-related ones. The country itself should be offering the chance for minorities to see themselves in its media. The customers and the culture of this country should learn to support any type of work centered around PoC.

Foreign cultural figures are, by virtue and all purposes, representatives of that specific foreign local population and their visions. Changing foreign gods and heroes, who you already treat like props, to mend your cultural issues is disrespectful. Example: Black people are underrepresented in Greek media but a Greek film about the Chinese pantheon isn't the appropriate place for their representation. In other countries where Black/Brown/East Asian people are the norm in the media, it still isn't right to alter their local gods and heroes so they look like minorities within those countries. As the quote goes, "There is no identity that exempts you from doing harm".

Showing different peoples only through Greek mythology media can be possible if the creators account for real demographics and depictions of established gods and heroes. In a mystery book based on Greek mythology, your New Yorker group of friends/main characters can be whatever you desire. In the same context, if a deity wants to transform into a 50-year-old gay Black Mexican New Yorker for a specific reason that's also fine. But to have a whole foreign pantheon and heroes looking different "just because" (which is the Hades approach) treads into "using the figures as props" territory. Greek mythology is not - and shouldn't be - the only thing the US people are interested in.

Sorry if my tone here is angry at times but Westerners think the biggest, basic problem in Western Greek mythology-related media is "our minorities do not get represented" instead of "We (including our minorities) have been entertained and profiting from the appropriation of a foreign culture, and it's been so bad that we don't know how the actual culture looks like, and we do not even offer roles to these people on films/books/plays about their culture. In fact, we barely give them any representation". Don't get me wrong, both are problems. But in this specific situation, people are missing the forest for the tree.

It depends on what you mean by "fiction surrounding Greek mythology". I wouldn't expect any fictional work with a touch of ancient Greek culture to follow historical accuracy in all other factors. If the Greek culture is not there, it doesn't need the same gods and heroes but if it does have the Greek ones specifically, the respectful thing is to not alter their basic features and symbols. Similarly, a Nigerian school can, ofc, present an ancient Greek play regardless of the students not resembling 99.99% of the ancient and modern Greek recorded demographics. All can engage and share the inspiration, as long as they respect the tons of research about our heritage and the pains people have gone through so we can have accurate information, which matters, today.

Inspiration is fine but if your story is set in ancient Greece and the historical, real ancient Thebes has the diversity of the Seattle population that screams "barely educated American", I'm sorry. Not everything should be a copy paste of your own experiences, especially when writing about foreign cultures. There are real places out there with their own demographics and respecting that is basic human decency. Not getting in the trouble to even look how the residents (very diverse or not) and the heroes and the gods of a foreign country look when you put them on screen, that's just bad.

In the case of Hades, where diversity was born intentionally by the creators, Hermes having East Asian characteristics is the most American thing ever because he is treated as a prop without a background, not as a character or a real god. Consider the most basic question. Why does Hermes specifically, before even the Bronze Age hits, wants to present this way? Is he a Greek god who… likes how East Asian people look and decided to look like this and not like the Mediterranean locals, because he sees East Asians as a… costume? Does he always look like this? Then why does his depictions don't look like this? Does he change into an East Asian for… fun..? Does he change races every day of the week for fun? Because… race doesn't matter…? Every possible answer sounds either illogical or racist.

I understand the creators' motives were noble but intentions do not excuse everything. As a Greek, seeing my local god not looking like the hundreds of his depictions I've seen in museums and in Greek media, am I not supposed to ask why this happened in the context of Greek culture?

I gave some examples of PoC representation above but each case is different. I'd advise Greek mythology-related media creators to seek Greeks and Greek sensitivity readers. I can recommend at least one Greek sensitivity-reader and I can help a little bit myself if the questions are simple.

[poppletonink]

10 Things I Hate About You Review

★★★★★ - 5 stars

"But mostly I hate the way I don't hate you. Not even close, not even a little bit, not even at all."

Katarina Stratford does not conform to everyone else's ideas of teenage normalcy: she doesn't wear things based on what's trendy, she likes indie rock music and feminist novels and most importantly, Katarina Stratford does not want to date. On the other hand, her sister, Bianca does want to date. After their father decides that Bianca can only date when Kat does, a boy named Cameron (who has a crush on Bianca) comes up with a plan to pay someone to date Kat.

I love the characters in this film so very much. Kat is a feminist icon who I've idolised ever since I first watched this masterpiece. Bianca annoyed me at first but the whole punching Joey in the face thing was very cathartic for me, so she increased her placement in my favourite character ranks. Patrick Verona is amazing, and all of the Kats in the world know that not falling for him is a very trying task. Cameron, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of Patrick and yet he's extremely sweet and endearing - a hopeless romantic at heart (and a definite James Potter variant for sure).

It is safe to say that generally speaking feminism and rom-coms do not go hand-in-hand skipping down a flowery hill (what with most rom-coms being Chick Flicks, a controversial genre in the eyes of feminists everywhere). However, 10 Things I Hate About You manages to meld together these two assumedly opposing topics into an amazing masterpiece. It discusses a horrible idea formulated within society - that idea being that a woman cannot be in a relationship with a man, whilst retaining her status as a feminist. The irony of it is that feminism is about equality and yet we put this boundary between men and women, both of whom can be classified as feminists, and say 'No, you cannot date and wish for equal rights.' That's what is so wonderful about 10 Things I Hate About You: Kat Stratford is a feminist icon in her own right (what with her love of Sylvia Plath and riot grrrl bands, and her blatant "Well I suppose being male and an asshole makes you worthy of our time" comment) and yet she is also the star of a rom-com. She's a feminist who simultaneously "gets the guy".

Aside from the amazing characters and the amazing feminist representation of 10 Things, one of the best things about it is its music. Music plays such a big part in 10 Things, from it playing to represent the character's emotions to Kat wanting to start a band. The soundtrack overall is amazing, with riot-grrrl bands galore and Joan Jett as the queen of rock 'n' roll. Without a doubt my favourite musical moment of 10 Things is Heath Ledger singing "Can't Take My Eyes Off You"- it's one of the most romantic moments and an important part of Kat and Patrick's journey.

In case it could not be gathered from my prior statements, this modern, feminist adaptation of Shakespeare's Taming Of The Shrew is one of my favourite films of all time - on par with the likes of Dead Poet's Society and Clueless. It's wonderfully witty, romantic and heartwarming, and furiously feminist all in one - and if that does not convince you to watch it, then I don't really know what will.

[charlie-theidiot]

So, if you're into Hugh Jackman right now and if you're spending a bit too much time on tiktok watching edits (I'm not judging, I'm doing the same)

You've probably seen edits of this movie called Swordfish which came out in 2001.

And you've probably seen lots of edits on a particular scene depecting the test that Stan (Hugh Jackman) has to pass to prove how good of an hacker he is.

This test involve three things: a computer, a gun against his temple, and a non-consesual sexual act. (Whoever thought those three things could mix up well is a fool, but that's not the point).

You're probably asking yourself why I'm bothering you with this piece of information. Well, good question. This scene rather erotic was of course used in edits and lots of people love it, commenting on how Hugh Jackman looks in this scene. Which of course raised multiple questions from other people.

First, why are we all romanticizing a scene of evident rape?

Second, why are we all normalizing it?

And thirdly, and maybe more from me, why are we portraying male SA like this?

Today I'll try to answer those answers the best I can and from my point of view only.

First of all, two questions in one really, why are we normalizing and romanticizing this scene of blatant SA? Well, for me there's multiple reasons to it.

As a society we're too used to see male SA like something to joke about or to sexualize. Because they're men. They had to enjoy it, right? After all that's what all men always think about.

Wrong of course. Men are human like everyone else, and they of course think about other things than sex. And they can be victims of SA, even though they are not the majority of the victims. But since when as a society we decided to make fun or to hide a minority of victims? Anyway.

But there's an other reason why we romanticized this scene. It's the way it is portrayed of course.

When doing a movie, and I'm not teaching any of you anything, the way of filming and representing thing is a big part of the project.

If you watched this movie (for the plot, Hugh, or any reason really) you'll see that this scene is not portrayed as terrible. Yes, he is in a dangerous situation and there's stress put on him. But he doesn't look horrified. Lots of the shots are big plan on his face. And I don't want to write details but he doesn't seem terrified, or scared, or like he doesn't want it.

And I can see why it can lull the viewer in a false sense of security. Of course he's enjoying it. He doesn't look like anything else. Then it must be okay.

No. Wrong.

That's where we, and when I say we I'm talking about society and I include myself, that's where we are wrong. There is no excuse for what's happening and we should be horrified. But we're not. Because it is not portrayed as something horrible.

I haven't see the whole movie, this scene saying everything I had to know. Maybe it's a good movie, but I'm sure this scene is not talked again like a trauma or something horrendous. Once again, downplaying the horror of the situation.

That, for me at least, is why as a society we let ourself see this scene as something erotic. Especially with the way Hugh Jackman is portrayed as a big sex symbol (I could do a whole presentation on that too).

That leave us with my question, why are we portraying male SA like that?

Well, Jamie, that's a good question. I'll tell you why. It's because male SA is still a pretty sensitive and dirty subject for society. We're still not able of talking about female SA victims, so certainly not male victims.

And that vision is translated into our movies and TV shows. Most of the time, male SA is downplayed or acted as a joke or an erotic thing. And it's not always the producer's fault, it's also the public reaction to it. There's the 'Swordfish', but also Morty in 'Rick and Morty', Angel Dust in 'Hazbin Hotel', and in 'Hunger Games', and in 'Baby Reindeer'.

The list is long of male SA representation in the medias that are either now played seriously or not taken seriously. And maybe it's time we change our point of view on this matter.

To conclude, can we blame the people who made edits or enjoyed edits of this scene? I don't think we should. It is pointless, and the way the scene was made played a big role in it. It also shows that most people didn't really watch the movie and just wanted to make thirst traps, which is not something to condemn.

Thank you for reading this. I don't know if I make sense or if it's even a smart thing to say. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm already saying something that was already said. In either case, thanks for reading and have a good life.

PS: I'm always open to hear always points of view. I'm not always right, and who knows maybe I'll learn a thing or two.

[gecko-with-a-greatsword]

saw someone else to this so im plaguing my mutuals with this

free pass to ramble about literally any topic!!! i wanna hear about the things you like

ok I know you said things I like but I'm actually going to take this opportunity to rant about The Lorax (2012) because I have a lot of thoughts about why I hate this movie. Thank you for the ask :)

idk how coherent this will be and this might get long sorry

By the way no judgement to anyone who likes this movie or to the onceler fuckers, these are just my opinions. So to start off, I feel like the lorax story did not lend itself well to the animated kids movie formula. It probably would've been better as some sort of short film or something. And I know Dr Seuss was, like, racist and stuff but the lorax had a pretty good message. And in making the movie I feel like they muddled that message a lot.

So like I said, the story didn't fit the vibe, so to make it work as a kids movie they added an entire other plotline outside of the actual story. They expand upon both the world and the child hearing the story, and I have a problem with both of these. It seems like they were trying to make the town have that whimsical feel that other movies based on Seuss stories have, but personally, I don't think it works for the Lorax. Reading the story you get a sense that the world is desolate and barren. It feels pretty dystopian. In the movie that's only the area where the onceler lives and outside of that is a pretty nice looking town. Sure they have no trees, and are being scammed by some shitty CEO but it's a society with lots of people, who don't seem to feel like anything's wrong. And considering that it's a movie for children, I think the things that make it feel dystopian are too subtle. And you could argue that it was intentionally made to feel like real life, as some sort of commentary or something, but again I think kids won't pick up on that.

Moving on to the kid voiced by zac Efron, (I don't remember his name and I don't really care) I think in the story the kid is meant to be a stand in for anyone, like it doesn't matter who he is because it's meant to be you, reading the story. So making this kid a more fleshed out character was not something I would've done in the first place. Furthermore this kid doesn't even think anything's wrong. He's just motivated by the girl he likes saying she wishes she could see a tree! and that's kind of all he cares about which makes me feel like at that point why isn't she just the main character? (also side it was a weird choice to make her be so much older than him.) Basically I didn't care about any of this, they should have left out the entirety of this outside plot.

Anyway, moving on to the actual important part of the story, we have to talk about the onceler. And I think the main issue with the onceler is that they humanized him too much. Obviously in the picture book you don't really see his face, and reads like much more of a creature. I also believe that there was early concept art of the onceler where he was a lot more creature-y but obviously in the movie he ended up as just a guy. And you could argue that this makes sense because in real life it is humans who are at the root of all the things destroying the environment, but the onceler isn't meant to represent one person, he's meant to represent the companies and corporations. And I don't think the whole tumblr sexyman thing was necessarily their fault because I don't think that was intentional or that they could've forseen that, but it's kind of a testament to the fact that he is too sympathetic a character. And I guess that might be sort of the root of my problems with the movie, that everything feels too personal to be as allegorical as the original story feels. Oh yeah also the deleted song "Biggering" is actually really good and in my opinion would have worked much much better than how bad can i be or whatever. I feel like there's a lot more I could say and i'm probably forgetting a bunch of stuff but I'm kind of losing steam and I've already written a ton so I'll leave it at that I guess. I'm not rereading this lol I hope it's at all comprehensible and if anyone reads this whole thing sorry :P oh and DISCLAIMER I haven't watched this movie in a while or read the story so this was just me talking out my ass if I got something wrong or said anything stupid, whoops 🤷🏽

[emeraldspiral]

Thinking about the abundance of queer themes in horror and horror being a major influence on Invader Zim.

Like, there's a lot of essays and thinkpieces discussing how the horror genre and queerness go hand-in-hand. Whether we're talking about the abundance of queer-coded villains representing a fear of queer people or the fear of discovering ones own queerness, or if we're talking about how in general, queer people have a lot to be anxious about with many very real dangers existing as part of the background noise of their lives, so it's hard to find a horror movie that doesn't draw upon a fear that resonates in some way to the queer experience.

And like, I've already made a whole post about how the core premise of Zim is inherently queer. Zim being an actual alien already makes him an other in the human world, but he's also canonically aroace and considered "defective" even on his home planet. The show is about him trying to hide his otherness and present as normal while living with the constant dread of being exposed. Meanwhile, the show's deuteragonist is driven by a quest for acceptance from a society he doesn't conform to. A society which considers his non-conformity a mental illness, and essentially gaslights him about how they all know better than him about his own experiences when they won't even hear him out or look at his evidence because it conflicts with their predetermined biases.

But I think horror being part of the DNA of the show also contributes heavily to its inherent queerness.

Body horror and gross out horror are show staples, which often resonate especially with queer people's anxieties surrounding their autonomy, unwanted physical changes and desires, or disassociation between the body and self-identity.

Then there's the fact that horror films often utilize a formula featuring male killers or masculine monsters chasing around a female protagonist because of the perception that women are more vulnerable than men and men are more threatening than women. But because the two main characters are both male, a lot of storylines end up with one or the other of them in a traditionally feminine role. In Dark Harvest, Zim plays the part of the monster, while Dib ends up being the "final girl". Episodes like Plague of Babies, GIR Goes Crazy, and FBI Warning on the other hand, have Zim being the one stalked and menaced and frequently ending up in bondage. Then there's the Halloween episode where the climax is a direct homage to a scene from Aliens where Zim and Dib are both mimicking the roles of female characters, Ellen Ripley and Newt respectively, with Nightmare Bitters as the Xenomorph Queen.

The show's only main female character however, never plays the distressed victim role. She's generally portrayed as untouchable; too scary for anyone to mess with, smart enough to avoid trouble, and resourceful enough to get out of any situation unscathed. In Game Slave 2, she is the monster stalking a boy while in Bloaty's she's the hero rescuing her brother from Zim's clutches.

Then you've got stuff like Bestest Friend where Zim recruits a beard to try to appease people who've begun to scrutinize his private life, which then becomes the set-up for jokes about Keef being a terrifying stalker, attempting to force an intimate relationship that Zim doesn't want and which he fears will lead to his exposure.

In the Halloween episode, Dib's father turns his back on him and allows him to be institutionalized for once again making true statements about his own experiences that no one wants to listen to. In his nightmare world, the three most terrifying apparitions are his father, his sister, and his teacher, whose main goal is to strap him to a table and open up his head. Meanwhile, the nightmare version of himself is in a straight jacket with a lobotomy scar across his forehead.

Hospitals and mental institutions are horror staples, and within the show's context it makes sense for Dib to be afraid of them since he's always being called crazy for believing in the paranormal. But until relatively recently, queerness has in many places been medicalized as a mental illness and queer people have been subjected to involuntary commitment in medical institutions where "treatment" included things like shock therapy and lobotomy. Even today, conversion therapy still exists as an ever-present threat to LGBT people with non-accepting families and community members, such as school teachers, who are willing to out them out of disdain or a misguided belief that it's for their own good.

The show's horror elements may not have been intended to amplify the already inherently queer themes baked into the show's premise, but it certainly doesn't detract from it.

[thirdmagic]

honestly if barbie had been a 100% uncritical and unironic celebration of barbie as an empowering feminist figure i would have really checked out of it quickly. because yes, the takes that barbie is literally ruining the world and is a literal agent of the patriarchy is wrong and unfair and the idea that she's single handedly responsible for causing body image issues is really reductive, there's a reason it's in the movie and it's from the mouth of a tween girl in its most cartoonish exaggerated form lmao. but we've all been that pink-hating tween girl at some point who has only just discovered these words and terms for things we've always felt all our lives and our understanding of it is still kinda immature and reactionary. i do broadly think and feel very positively of barbie as a cultural icon, and I mean yeah a lot of it is nostalgia some of it is just me wanting to reclaim this symbol of everything girly that is derided for being girly and we feel we're forced to give up because its considered lesser. but genuinely i do think she's been the target of lots and lots of very unfair and bad faith criticism over the years. At the same time, if the film had unironically taken the "Barbie is Only a force for good and Has Solved Feminism" stance, like- that would have just really stretched my ability to engage with the film, because well, that's not really true or fair either, and I just wouldn't be able to buy it even from a very good film.

in the end the place barbie holds in legacy and place and culture is just... complicated. good or bad isnt really the question, she is a cultural icon, she responds to certain trends, she represents certain trends, she defies certain trends, she is shaped by the culture she is part of. and people will respond to that differently. that's why the trailer tagline was 'if you love her barbie or if you hate barbie, this movie is for you', and i think why the film really really works for me is that it delivers on that promise. it does what i most wanted and hoped it would do when i saw it would go for that more meta angle, by wrestling with the many different complicated layers of her legacy and what she means to many different people, good and bad, without damning her or elevating her on a pedestal.

because yeah i don't think we can deny that in many ways she is an embodiment of a sort of ideal and stereotypical femininity that yes is a largely patriarchal standard. but it's also the fact that she does do a lot to empower girls to have dreams and ambitions and to seek out self fulfillment and creativity in their play, and that is important and significant and beautiful about what she does do. but the other side of that is the insane amount of pressure you might feel as a girl to Be Something and how your only worth is if you're exceptional in some way, and she does interact with that, the messaging behind her does feed into that, if only because its an idea that already exists and is ingrained in us from society on the whole. and the film responds to that by making 'it's ok to just be you' its core message, by emphasizing with that struggle, by having barbie herself decide to just be regular and human and find worth in humanity and human flaws of flesh and aging and body. and a fully grown adult woman, a mom with a desk job who understands full well that nothing about barbie is realistic and didn't fulfill any of the ambitions barbie represents, can find joy and relief and value and beauty in playing with her.

it doesn't offer an easy answer of 'is barbie good or bad' because there is no easy answer to that, and it gives us the veneer of a hollywood happy ending but ultimately it doesn't pretend that everything's been solved forever and now everything will be good. there is a fair bit of cynicism in the line 'one day the kens will hold as much power in barbieland as women do in the real world' with how the film understands that inequality cant be magically fixed and it doesn't try to sell you on that either- again, if it had been the kind of Inequality Has Been Solved And Everyone Is Happy ending you kind of expect from most fantasy-ish movies to this effect I would have just not bought it. Ending on the note of and "our Barbie, the main character, found her path in life and is happy even if the world isn't fixed" just feels more honest for this kind of personal story really.

beyond saying only one specific thing about it, the film is in conversation with the legacy and the discussion around barbie, which is the most important thing that a film about barbie, as a brand or as a character, can be. it brings it into the film and makes that entire conversation the central conceit and uses it as a vehicle to explore ideas about womanhood on the whole, which i think is ultimately a good choice because it's that very legacy and discussion that makes barbie as a character and a cultural icon perfect for this kind of metaphor.

[theinfinitedivides]

being british is not "a fast track to being not decent". if you're not living in britain then your perception is being altered by the fact that the only ones you ever fucking see on screen were born into the 0.1%.

also how did you miss the entire point of that post, the point is that any english actor allowed to have any kind of career these days is the opposite of representative of the majority of citizens. hopefully you're just a kid but if not jesus christ learn to fucking read

i was going to start this with the traditional pleasantries but it seems my general use of sarcasm (humorous or otherwise) on this main for the past 3+ years is lost on you (even though i am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you're coming across me for the first time), so let me make it very clear: my ancestors were f*cking enslaved by the UK. there are ancestors that haven't been confirmed except through word of mouth that were most likely f*cked over by the UK in various ways. i think then, in this circumstance, that i have the right to say that the British government in general has done f*cking horrible things. the British themselves have done f*cking horrible things. i am not talking about individual people on the streets and in the countryside just trying to live their lives, i am talking about the entire f*cking system that enables sh*t like this. the British system is not decent. not at all, and if you're steeped in that like a mf*cking teabag for God knows how long, i've found it hard to discover exceptions to the societal bedrock that is racism, classism and white jackassery since we're talking about the same place that, despite giving us Shakespeare and Rickman and Princess Diana (landed gentry aside) also gave us Churchill (took the UK through WWII but engineered a f*cking famine in India bc according to him they 'breed like rabbits'), the f*cking Fiennes clan (Ralph is a JKR supporter), and Charles and Andrew and the rest of the royal f*cking family, so if that isn't a fast track to being not decent then idk what is.

that being said, sure, as cynical of a bitch that i am maybe my perception is less than ideal bc of the 0.1%, but if all of the f*cking people in charge are part of the 0.1% then how tf do you expect me to say otherwise, exactly? the reason there isn't representation is bc the industry sucks ass, which is why the only actors i'm interested in are Welsh and Irish and Scottish—the status quo rn is not concerned with allowing people with a regular 'English' background to have their time on screen, let alone LGBTQ+ and POC. and so yes, the nepo babies are going to continue to have a career, even if they act worse than f*cking paint on a drywall, and the cycle will start all over again, and we can forget about having a f*cking accurate portrayal of the average citizen any time soon, and this goes for the British film industry and Hollywood and Bollywood—contrary to your belief, i am privileged enough to have been able to learn in such a way that i was able to pick up the necessary comprehension skills needed to function meaningfully in this society without being disenfranchised. (PSA: others, i know, have not been able to. that does not make them worth any less.) i didn't know, however, that i was supposed to write an entire essay in the f*cking tags??? to explain that i did, in fact, comprehend??? and to reiterate what was already f*cking there??? i'm sorry??? just bc i chose not to address the aforementioned info and instead indirectly acknowledged that it was correct by emphazing what i did doesn't mean i didn't see it—i literally put a qualifier for the first point you brought up (something like '... if the ancestors minded their f*cking business #and lived their lives like normal human beings'). generational tendencies and traits are a thing, that's why we have a whole subset of American citizens who still think it's alright to use the f*cking N word to refer to Black people

look, i really don't know what side of the bed you woke up on and i'm sorry you felt the need to come into my inbox and bitch about this, but i hope you felt better after sending this and didn't put any of this toxicity into anyone else's space, OK? ty <333

[ecsundance]

Independent Film Review #2 Do The Right Thing

Do The Right Thing takes the audience through a hot day in a Brooklyn neighborhood. The film mainly follows the character Mookie (Spike Lee), with some moments following other members of the community. The film goes through many ups and downs in the action but it all culminates in the ending. Throughout the film, there is a build-up of racial/societal tension, that breaks and the outcome is an event that we have become sadly way too familiar with. The film takes place in a predominantly black neighborhood with the local pizza place being run by an Italian American man and his two sons. Across the street from the pizza place, there is a corner store that is run by a Korean family. We get moments in the film where each racial group takes turns talking down on another group of the community, this moment brings to focus the subtle and not-so-subtle dynamics going on within the film. It is the moment that outright states what this film is, not simply a community issue but a societal issue that affects all of America then and now. 

In a review of the film in 1989 by Roger Ebert his last comment stands out and clarifies the way I saw this movie. “Do the Right Thing doesn't ask its audiences to choose sides; it is scrupulously fair to both sides, in a story where it is our society itself that is not fair.” Yes, the dynamics and animosities are race directed but they're in a way in which it is bringing up societal issues. One of the three slogans of indie is characters as emblems, this refers to the characters in indie films being a representation of the larger community they are a part of. Mokie is a black middle-class working man, this is a specific example, however, the characters as emblems can be broadened a bit more. The different racial groups are emblems of the larger group as a whole. The Korean family is hassled by a few different people and at the end of the movie they are almost turned on by the angry mob. In the movie, it is mentioned that they recently opened the corner store in a building that has been boarded up for years. As characters the Korean family not only represents immigrant families that have the drive to make something for themselves in America but also the working Korean American community as a whole.

Another societal issue that is prominent in the film that doesn’t just lay with the racial issues is who has a right to the American life. The owner of the pizza place Sal has a son named Pino who is openly racist towards the black members of the community. He believes that he and his father and brother should not be working in the neighborhood but with their own people. Even though Sal has owned the pizza place for many years and most of the members of the community grew up on his pizza. There are also members of the black community who don't believe that the Korean family belongs there. America is a melting pot of immigration. That is how the country was founded and immigrants are the ones who made this country what it is, that always seems to be forgotten. It is easy to think about the racial violence and say how bad it is but in order to change that and to fix the horrible patterns we need to be thinking in terms of the society.

-Molly Raymo

[mimilind]

What the Fans Thought of the Lord of the Rings Movies Before the Release

This Redditor made a summary of forum discussions prior to the release of the first film in the LOTR trilogy, and man were they angry! They hated Peter Jackson with a passion, they hated the cast, and they hated the changes from the book.

Here are a few:

”Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough”

”Cate Blanchett?? Don't ask me from what gene pool PJ picked his elves from…”

”Hollywood seeks money. Art is secondary. Everything else, except in rare cases, is secondary. Producers and directors are hired to make ’shock-value’ and attract audiences.”

”the movie is not made for the fans. it is made to make MONEY. it is all about profit.”

”I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society.”

(He’s not wrong in that prediction, actually… Though I fail to see much problem with it.)

”I will go now, without so great an expectation of seeing the LOTR... but rather I will simply go see some potentially decent fantasy movie made by some fat, ugly Englishman with a terrible beard.”

”I think what you see in the cast list are people who... don't really have a career anymore but are willing to ignore the fact that they are prosituting themselves and Tolkien's writings so long as they get paid...”

”We already know Ian McKellen's done a lousy job”

”Doesn't Celborn look like an a number one WUSS!! Why couldn't they have picked someone with a little more presence.”

”[Arwen’s] just supposed to be this little Elven-hottie that sits in the Hall of Fire & has next to no lines, and Aragorn marries her in the end.”

”in the book as others have stated already, she simply sits there looking pretty”

”I think that by turning her into this warrior sorceress Mr. Jackson is twisting and cheapening her character”

”And I'm not someone who always hates ’political correctness.’ But this is different entirely.”

”If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely... But political correctness (also known as BULLS\*\*T) in Hollywood won't allow that.”

”not to mention they show Aragorn kissing Arwen, yep”

”He’s just as homely as he was on The Matrix!! Except he's supposed to be beautiful as Elrond!! What happened??”

As you see, the pre-LOTR trilogy complaints are eerily similar to the ones we see now about the upcoming Amazon series, and as the redditor I’m quoting found in later threads, the only result was that the complainers totally ruined the enjoyment for themselves:

By obsessing over random details of the movie outside of proper context, those fans ruined the movies for themselves for no good reason. Judging from later threads, many of them went into the movie theatre in a nit-picking mode and spent the whole time trying to find every minor problem in the movies to prove that their preconception of the movie was right all along. They didn't try to enjoy it with an open mind and didn't experience the magical feeling of seeing Tolkien's world on screen, which most fans enjoyed and cherished.

And this is why I think this hate I see everywhere is so toxic. The series is already cast, filmed and several seasons planned. Your complaints and nit-picking will change nothing but your own enjoyment – and that of others, who see these endless rants, and are affected by the negativity too.

Don’t do this to yourself. Don’t do it to others. Just chill, and wait and see. If you’re going to watch the series, do it with an open, not so judgemental mind, and enjoy a new opportunity to journey to Middle-earth. Or else, just don’t watch it – problem solved.

[rocrown]

D.E.B.S. – An Essay (800 words)

An Examination of the Themes and Criticism of Patriarchy and Homophobia in the Film, which I wrote a 3 am.

The reviews on IMDb for D.E.B.S. (2004) largely miss the point of the movie. The majority of reviews (there and elsewhere including those by professional film critics) lack the necessary familiarity with queer cinema and the queer experience to properly understand and accurately review the film. To view it as anything but a queer film is laughably obtuse; it's a film centred around a Sapphic romance, written, directed and edited by Angela Robinson, a lesbian.

The establishment (protectorate of the status quo, society) regards a lesbian as their greatest enemy. The largest concern of an intelligence agency in post-9/11 America during the second year of the Iraq War is a gay woman. And when Amy ("The Perfect Score", Uber-Deb) expresses attraction for Lucy she is immediately shamed by her friend.

When her friends and superiors learn of her relationship with Lucy, her entire support system shames her, shows disappointment, hurt, and oppresses her by putting her on house arrest, forcing her to give a lie-filled speech, and making it clear that if she doesn't do what they say, she'll be punished, have her life upturned and lose her friends/family. (The makeup of the D.E.B.S. as sisters with one male and one female superior mimics a nuclear family.) Furthermore, as part of her punishment for the crime of running off and sleeping with a woman, Amy is forced back into her previous relationship with a man in order to present as heterosexual and maintain the illusion of being the ideal Deb.

Near the end we learn that the secret test inside the S.A.T.s measure the person's ability to lie, and that as "The Perfect Score", Amy is the perfect liar. However, she's a terrible liar throughout the film once she meets Lucy, because she finally acknowledges her same-sex attraction and stops lying to herself, stops accepting the lie of compulsory heterosexuality.

Looking at the D.E.B.S. as a whole, they represent the feminine ideal through the lens of the male gaze—beautiful young woman, in schoolgirl outfits, fighting crime in crop tops and high heels with perfect hair and makeup à la Charlie's Angels. Janet, who least embodies these ideals is viewed as a lesser Deb; while Dominique, with her too-short skirt, cigarettes and promiscuity is not American. At the beginning of the movie both Amy and Max epitomize the feminine ideal, the happy medium of looking "hot but not slutty" and having a monogamous heterosexual relationship (which Amy is already rejecting in the early scenes). However, we're not viewing these characters through that perspective; we're being shown how society (the establishment) expects these young women to look and behave, a criticism or at very least a comment on these ideas.

Dominique breaks the rules by sleeping with men in the house after curfew, but she receives no actual punishment, only a cursory, "No boys after curfews". But Amy almost kisses a woman and she's a "gay slut". When Amy runs away with Lucy, she symbolically leaves behind her necktie; in the film its message is that Lucy has taken her, but from a feminist reading, she is literally cutting ties with the standards of society. She ditches the skirt and heels, the whole infantilizing schoolgirl outfit, in exchange for jeans, tees and more mature looking and often more comfortable clothes.

Society, represented in the film as the D.E.B.S. and adjacent intelligence agencies, upholds the patriarchy wherein their greatest threat is a woman who isn't interested in men, and the most grievous misdeed their agent can commit is running off and having a Sapphic relationship with her while abandoning the aesthetic and behavioural ideals instituted by society. To increase its authenticity, it places a woman in a position of authority; she is cold, distant and blunt, an authoritarian older woman whose manner is likely a response to the male-dominated field in which she works. Her biggest concern is how this "embarrassment" will make her the laughingstock to her male peers in the intelligence community, speaking to the sexism and homophobia present in the community; the solution proposed by Max that they claim Lucy brainwashed Amy, and that Amy must return and go through the prescribed heterosexual behaviours (returning to their work, her uniform, and her relationship with a man) strengthens the argument towards the inherent homophobia in the society the film presents.

Because it is in the guise of a campy spy parody with dollar signs on money bags and death rays aimed at Australia, schoolgirl uniforms, oversized guns, bad accents and a villain able to disappear leaving only diamonds behind, D.E.B.S. is wildly misunderstood and under-appreciated as a piece of queer feminist cinema.

[iamthenightcolormeblack]

My Thoughts on Pride & Prejudice 2005: Style over Substance

Kicking off my Pride and Prejudice adaptation review series with the most popular of all the adaptations: the 2005 movie. This film stars Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy.

1. GENERAL THINGS I LIKED

The cinematography and the soundtrack. Every shot is a painting, especially with the gorgeous landscape scenery. The music is beautiful and dreamy; I have listened to the soundtrack more times than I've watched the film. Both the cinematography and the soundtrack effectively transport the viewer back to the film's romanticized version of "the past," when life was simpler and people lived slower lives, waiting for their Mr. Darcy to sweep them off their feet.

Originality. The film takes a unique approach to the story by focusing mainly on the romance between Darcy and Elizabeth and emphasizing how the natural surroundings reflect the characters' mental state/emotions (pouring rain during the first proposal and stormy skies when Elizabeth hurries home after Lydia runs away). Though one can disagree with the creative changes made, I like how this film isn't just a remake of what came before it.

Elizabeth's walks through the countryside. The film expresses her desire for freedom through her countryside walks. For instance, the Netherfield walk is shocking to Caroline Bingley because it demonstrates Elizabeth's independence.

The comedic parts are great thanks to the creative additions made. For example, the "excellent boiled potatoes" joke isn't in the book, but it perfectly exemplifies Mr. Collins' poor social skills and pretentiousness, as he tries to make an overly formal comment about an otherwise mundane dish.

2. THE CASTING

The acting is good, although I don't always agree with how the characters are portrayed.

Keira Knightley. I like how she's the right age for Elizabeth, who is around 20-21 years old; Knightley was around 19-20 when she played Elizabeth, plus she has gorgeous eyes. She perfectly conveys the pride, confidence, and biting wit of Elizabeth, as she holds her head high in an imperious manner and has a direct, piercing gaze. However, I don't like how this version chooses to simplify Elizabeth's character into that of "free-spirited nonconformist tomboy," who is a nature-lover and runs to the countryside to console herself when things get tough (ex. running to the lake after rejecting Mr. Collins). This is a contrast to the Elizabeth Bennet as presented to us in the book, who acts like a typical "lady" for the sake of her social reputation; she mostly keeps her thoughts to herself except when talking to Jane or Darcy. Elizabeth is powerful not because she rejects society outright; it is because she does not submit to societal pressure to marry and makes her own choices (ex. rejecting Mr. Collins).

Matthew Macfadyen. His Darcy is cold, aloof, and remote, yet shows signs of a rich inner life and unrequited yearning for Elizabeth as a soulmate. I like how this version shows Elizabeth peeling away his cold exterior like the layers of an onion, until his heart of gold is revealed. While I think Macfadyen is a good actor, I disagree with the interpretation of Darcy solely being a lonely introvert, as it neglects his primary character flaw of pride.

Tom Hollander's Mr. Collins. Probably the best casting, as he perfectly portrays the bumbling awkwardness of the character and is more sympathetic than the gross Mr. Collins in the 1995 BBC miniseries. He is short, has a nasally voice and officious manner that makes him annoying yet fun to watch.

Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley. He's so friendly and eager to please, like the character is in the book.

Rosamund Pike's Jane Bennet. Utterly angelic and motherly, need I say more? The perfect antidote to Elizabeth's savagery.

Rupert Friend's Mr. Wickham. Handsome and dashing in a red soldier's uniform. It's easy to see how a girl would fall for him and ignore his debauchery, but also obvious that he is deceptive. For instance, he keeps claiming that he is insignificant and unnoticed, when he basks in the attention of Elizabeth, Kitty and Lydia.

3. OVERALL CHARACTER AND PLOT DEVELOPMENT

Since this is a movie, character development is a challenge, and the film relies on changes of outward appearance/dialogue to show character growth. For instance, we get to see Darcy's change from cold and remote into warm and loving, while Elizabeth admits that "she was wrong" about Darcy and slowly comes to respect him.

The first half (beginning to Darcy's proposal) is great because it effectively introduces the audience to the cast of characters (the family, Darcy, Bingley, Caroline, Wickham, and Mr. Collins). It also contains all the comedic parts and sets up the conflicts that drive the story. Overall, this half is more faithful to the novel because it has the social satire aspects of the story and sticks to the key plot points while developing the characters.

The second half is rather lackluster compared to the first because it focuses solely on resolving the plot points introduced in the first half. This part of the book contains important events for Elizabeth's character development (getting the letter, visiting Pemberley, dealing with the fallout from Lydia's elopement), but the film rushes through them to get Elizabeth and Darcy married. Instead of focusing on how Elizabeth overcomes her prejudice of Darcy and starts to love him, the film relies on aesthetic shots of flickering candles/landscapes to serve as quick transitions between the scenes. Though we have plenty of evidence that Darcy loves Elizabeth, we don't see much evidence that the love is mutual until the second proposal, only that Elizabeth starts to see him as a friend.

Another reason I don't like the second half of the film as much as the first half is the reduced dialogue. This second half has a lot of quiet moments devoted to nature scenery/Elizabeth staring in the mirror. Reducing the dialogue, with the exception of the letter scene, doesn't make sense because the plot/action of Pride and Prejudice is furthered through the conversations the characters have (after all, wealthy Regency women likely spent much time indoors/making social calls). While one can argue that the reduced dialogue is meant to show that Elizabeth is reflecting on her mistaken prejudice, without access to Elizabeth's interior thoughts, the audience doesn't get to see Elizabeth actively confronting her false assumptions about Darcy, unlike in the book, where she says out loud to herself: "Until this moment, I never knew myself."

Notable Scenes From the First Half of the Film:

The opening scene. It sets the tone for the whole movie with the beginning shot of a field at dawn, which ties in nicely with the second proposal scene near the end. By presenting Elizabeth by herself reading a book, it communicates to the audience that Elizabeth is "not like other girls," and it shows the imperfect, yet loving family dynamics of the Bennet household.

Elizabeth roasting Darcy after he dismisses her as "tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me." During a conversation the Bennet family has with Darcy and Bingley, Mrs. Bennet commits a social gaffe when talking about Jane's many admirers and how one sent her poetry. Elizabeth saves the situation by commenting that bad poetry can kill love, and Darcy comments that he regards poetry as "the food of love" and asks how to "encourage affection." I like that the film included this little exchange from the book (although it takes place while Elizabeth is visiting a sick Jane at Netherfield, and not during the first ball), since it was skipped over in the 1995 miniseries. The best part is Elizabeth's sick burn: "Dancing. Even if one's partner is barely tolerable," which is made even better when she walks away from him with a triumphant smile on her face.

The famous Hand Flex. After Darcy helps Elizabeth into the carriage (by holding her hand) so she and Jane can head back home, he glances longingly at her before wringing the hand with which he touched hers. It's an important hint of his growing love for her, as well as his struggle to repress those feelings. This is a wonderful bit of character development as it reveals that Darcy has a heart.

Mr. Collins having a meal with the Bennet family. The awkwardness is palpable as Mr. Collins tries to show off his social skills and give pro tips on charming ladies. This is all topped off with this amazing comedic joke: "These are excellent boiled potatoes. Many years since I've had such an exemplary vegetable." Another brilliant bit: after Lydia cannot contain her laughter, Lizzy, after giving her father a mischievous side-eye, slaps Lydia on the back to hide her laughter. Best line besides the excellent boiled potatoes: "Believe me, no one would suspect your manners to be rehearsed."

The Netherfield Ball dance between Darcy and Elizabeth. It is staged like a clash of personalities in the beginning, while the creative filming technique of separating the couple apart from the crowd of dancers foreshadows the budding relationship between them. I also like how sarcastic the dialogue is--Elizabeth is trying to win a battle of wits with Darcy but he successfully avoids her traps while reminding her that she doesn't truly know him and cannot make judgements about his personality.

Mr. Collins trying to introduce himself to Darcy. It's so comical because of the significant height difference between Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy (Collins is dwarfed by Darcy). The height difference effectively represents the significant difference in social status between the two men and makes Collins, with his pomposity, look ridiculous as he fancies himself part of the nobility but cannot properly introduce himself.

Mr. Collins' proposal--one of the funniest scenes in the movie. Mr. Collins clumsily tries to flatter Elizabeth with a tiny flower, and it gets even funnier when he so obviously misreads Elizabeth's disinterest and outright exasperation (he doesn't understand that no means no!). After Mr. Collins bends down on one knee to propose to Elizabeth, the film emphasizes Elizabeth's towering presence over Collins to show that the two are a mismatch. The fact that the proposal takes place in the messy dining room reflects Collins' view of marriage as a business matter that he wants to get done with quickly, since the location of the proposal is not very romantic.

Elizabeth roasting Darcy yet again at Rosings Park. Elizabeth eagerly recounts to Colonel Fitzwilliam Darcy's impolite manners at the first ball; Darcy confesses that "I do not have the talent of conversing easily with people I have never met before." I like how the nervous and quiet delivery of that line shows to the audience that Darcy is an introvert, and it shows that he's an honest person, since he abhors "disguise of every sort." The scene effectively highlights Elizabeth's prejudice towards Darcy as the audience feels pity for him when Elizabeth tells him to practice.

"This is a charming house." During this scene, Darcy visits Elizabeth while she is alone and awkwardly attempts to make conversation with her. Macfadyen is a master of body language; Darcy says little but expresses a lot (ex. the nervous fiddling with his gloves). He tries to express his feelings for Elizabeth but gives up and abruptly walks out of the room.

The first proposal. What a climactic scene (but not very faithful to the book)! The music, thunder, and rain perfectly complement the volcano of emotions that erupts when Darcy cannot repress his feelings any longer. This scene has some of the best sexual tension ever; the two get closer to each other until they almost kiss. While this scene is great to an objective viewer, I don't like that the modified dialogue changes the original meaning of this scene (more about this later).

The letter. Elizabeth has a moment of introspection when she is forced to question her judgment, and Darcy delivers his letter. I like the shot of Darcy riding farther and farther away from Elizabeth, signaling that he is becoming increasingly out of her reach.

Notable Scenes from the Second Half of the Film:

Aunt and Uncle Gardiner arrive right after Elizabeth comes back from Rosings and they take her away to a vacation. I didn't like how they were introduced too quickly; I was thinking to myself "how did they get there and where did they come from?" Luckily we are treated to more glorious shots of the English countryside (the one with them under a large oak tree is my favorite).

Visiting Pemberley. I was puzzled by why Elizabeth laughs as soon as she sees Pemberley for the first time because in the book she was in complete awe of it. Also it doesn't make sense why she would touch his expensive stuff it's not her house...or is it? The good thing is that the embarrassment the two have upon meeting each other again is definitely palpable. Georgiana is sweet, but a little less shy than she was in the book.

Darcy smiles! After introducing Georgiana to Elizabeth, he smiles for a brief time at Elizabeth, and she smiles back. It's a great moment showing how Elizabeth has drawn out his goodness, and indicates that Darcy has transformed for Elizabeth. She also starts seeing him as a friend and her prejudice against him seems to have reversed in this moment of mutual recognition.

Lydia's elopement. Keira Knightley's fake cry was off-putting. Then Darcy only talks to her for a little bit and doesn't help her much (unlike in the book, where he asked her to sit down and got her some wine to make her feel better). I don't know why the aunt and uncle are in this scene because it's very important in developing Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship. In the book, the two are alone, and Elizabeth choosing to tell Darcy about Lydia's elopement is a sign that she trusts him, while Darcy's concern for Elizabeth further confirms that he still loves her. This extremely brief scene flickers quickly, and it takes only a few seconds before Elizabeth is crying in her carriage, while the sky is dark and ominous.

Bingley rehearsing his proposal with Darcy. This added scene, which is not in the book, is so funny because of how Darcy roleplays Jane, while Bingley has so much anxiety about her not accepting him. It's a nice glimpse into their friendship and it's also funny because Bingley is getting proposal advice from someone who failed very miserably at proposing.

Sunrise on the Moors. Another objectively beautiful and romantic scene that is definitely not faithful to the book. The two meet each other in a field in their nightgowns and profess their love to each other while blessed by the rising sun.

4. MAJOR FLAWS; OR, HOW THE FILM DIVERGES FROM THE BOOK

In earlier book adaptation reviews, I stated that I welcomed creative changes as long as they reflected what was already in the book (ex. literary elements and character development) or the author's intent, since film and books are different mediums and some storytelling techniques that work in books may not work on film. This movie is undoubtedly well-known for its creative changes, especially in terms of historical setting and dialogue. While these creative changes entertain the audience, I feel that they change the meaning of the story as presented by the book.

Here's the biggest issue I have with the movie: Darcy has no pride. The film interprets his "pride" as a misconception strangers get from Darcy's cold manner and inconsiderate remarks, but in the book he is an arrogant person who views his social inferiors as beneath him and treats them poorly. In the movie, his whole character is fashioned in the modern image of the "sensitive man," who is kind and considerate if only the outside world would appreciate his uniqueness. Thus, Elizabeth's prejudice against him is entirely without merit. While making Darcy a more sympathetic person highlights how wrong Elizabeth's prejudice is, the fact is that both of them have "pride and prejudice." Some fans have commented that Darcy is like a sad puppy at times. It's hard to see how he's a good match for this Elizabeth's fiery spirit, only that he wouldn't infringe upon her freedom to roam. A lot of YouTube comments I read were people expressing their desire to "hug Darcy" or console him after Elizabeth rejects him; this doesn't make sense because Darcy is an unsympathetic character until he is forced to change in order to earn Elizabeth's love. Apart from becoming kinder to Elizabeth and the Gardiners, Darcy never really changes in the movie; he still remains a socially awkward introvert.

The re-interpretation of Pride and Prejudice as purely a romantic novel: The emphasis on romance means that the other elements of the book--the social criticism, secondary characters and the dialogue--are de-emphasized for the sake of the romance between Elizabeth and Darcy.

The film's approach to the story echoes Charlotte Bronte's criticism of the novel: "And what did I find [in Pride and Prejudice]? ... a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright, vivid physiognomy, no open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck. I should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined homes." This version of Pride and Prejudice utilizes Romantic elements not in the book (ex. the storms, the landscapes) to increase the passion that the characters feel but cannot express.

Pride and Prejudice is perceived as a "boring" book because much of the drama takes place indoors (ex. Darcy's first proposal is in Mr. Collin's home), whereas in the film, there is greater emphasis on the natural scenery in keeping with its Romantic interpretation (lots of the "open country" that Charlotte Bronte desired). While the landscape scenes are beautiful, locating the action indoors, in the grand houses of the nobility, emphasizes the repressive, tradition-based nature of Regency Era society that Austen criticized (in a subtle way). These houses reinforce social hierarchy, for instance; the interior of Rosings Park is showy and stifling because it it represents Lady Catherine De Bourgh's wealth and power over those around her. Locating most of the scenes indoors visually represents the "confined and unvarying" lives of Regency era women and makes Elizabeth Bennet's independent streak much more significant.

Some of the social constraints that Elizabeth and Darcy face are removed. For example, Elizabeth is much more direct in her criticisms of others (ex. the "barely tolerable" insult), whereas in the book she largely confines these criticisms to her intimate friends such as Jane and Charlotte Lucas. While this effectively shows how badass she is, Elizabeth likely would not have taunted Darcy in such a direct way, as it would have been considered impolite and likely harmed her social reputation in a society governed by rigid adherence to social etiquette. And of course, Darcy likely would not have been walking around the English countryside in an open-chested shirt although we may have Colin Firth's wet shirt to blame for that. The importance of following etiquette rules is shown when Darcy offends the whole village by refusing to dance with anyone during the first ball. As a woman in a patriarchal society, it would have been even more important for Elizabeth to follow the rules, as her social reputation was important to her chances of making a good marriage. By de-emphasizing the rigid social norms that govern the characters, the obstacles to Elizabeth and Darcy's marriage are less significant, and it seems that the only thing standing in the way of their being together is Elizabeth's unreasonable hatred of Darcy.

Also, in many of Austen's novels, the hometowns of her heroines and its inhabitants are their own characters; the power of gossip in determining one's social reputation for the "marriage market" is de-emphasized in the film. In Pride and Prejudice, a major reason Elizabeth doesn't discover Wickham's bad character at first is because of the "general approbation of the neighborhood" and social popularity he has in Hertfordshire. After Lydia elopes, the family is in a bad situation with regards to marriage prospects because the village had "generally proved [the Bennets] to be marked out for misfortune." In the film, the role of the village is relegated to that of a place for entertainment and nothing more.

Others have noted that the film also exaggerates the social divide between Elizabeth and Darcy by turning the Bennet family into peasant farm-owners who have messy hair and wear plain, homespun clothing. This justifies Darcy's social prejudice against the Bennets, which undercuts Austen's message of morals, actions, and treatment of others being a better indicator of character than class rank (the rich people in this book, with the exception of Darcy, Georgiana and Bingley, are shown to be lazy or plain ridiculous). While Darcy may be richer than Elizabeth, and have better connections, they are both members of the gentry--after all, they do not have to work to maintain their lifestyles. Instead, we are presented with a conventional rags-to-riches story, where our poor but virtuous heroine is rewarded with a rich Prince Charming who takes her away from the squalor of her home to his great big palace.

Ultimately, the story is changed into an argument for love, specifically the passionate kind, triumphing over all; Elizabeth overcomes her hatred of men as "humorless poppycocks" to be with Darcy. Near the end, Mary reads out of a book claiming that a lady should give in to her passions and surrender to love, which doesn't make sense as the marriage based entirely on passion (Lydia and Wickham) is shown to be less than ideal.

While Austen does believe in following one's heart (ex. Persuasion, where Anne Elliot regrets rejecting Captain Wentworth because of his lower social status), others have commented that she presents the ideal relationship as a balance between mind and heart. Charlotte's practical marriage to Mr. Collins represents the traditional view of marriage as an "economic proposition," it is entirely logical and calculated, whereas Lydia and Wickham's marriage is the other emotional extreme, motivated entirely by sexual infatuation. Before Elizabeth acknowledges her love for Darcy, she must respect him as her intellectual equal. Here's the passage from the book where Elizabeth realizes she loves Darcy: "She now began to comprehend that he was exactly the man, who in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. It was an union that must have been to the advantage of both; by her ease and liveliness, his mind might have been softened, his manners improved, and from his judgment, information, and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance." Elizabeth's decision to marry Darcy is not only a result of her heart's desire, but it comes after she does some thinking and concludes they are compatible and would be able to live with each other on a day-to-day basis.

Something else I find ironic is the director's (Joe Wright's) claim that he aimed for realism in the film, given that Austen already depicted Regency era life realistically by focusing on social norms, class, and wealth:

The director, in his quest for "realism," features the messy environment of the Bennet household, which doesn't make sense given that they are still relatively wealthy (when defending herself, Elizabeth tells Lady Catherine that she is "a gentleman's daughter"). Also, they have servants to clean things up, so why would the house be in a constant state of disarray?

Lastly, how is the second proposal scene is "realistic?" It is a moment of "psychic communication" between Darcy and Elizabeth which is out of character for the book. They both "can't sleep" and walked, in the words of Wikipedia, "across the moors" to see each other ok this seriously reminds me of Wuthering Heights. The scene is powerful because every woman wants to be told that "you have bewitched me body and soul" but "realistically," this doesn't happen (and this line isn't in the book either).

"REALISM" IS THE REASON WHY WE FUSS OVER HISTORICAL ACCURACY!!! HISTORICAL ACCURACY ALLOWS PERIOD DRAMAS TO BE REALISTIC!!!!

If the characters wore historically accurate clothing (different from the loosely inspired, modernized dresses/hair in the film), it would have emphasized the lack of freedom women had in Regency Era society and reinforced the importance of following social norms to succeed in a patriarchal society.

Bad Script Changes:

This film is known for its modernized script, which makes it easier for a mainstream audience to watch the movie. However, it also changes depictions of the characters in ways that undercut the meaning of the book.

Elizabeth Bennet, man-hater:

"Oh, they [men] are far too easy to judge. Humorless poppycocks, in my limited experience."

"And which of the painted peacocks is Mr. Bingley?"

"Men are either eaten up with arrogance or stupidity. And if they're amiable they're so easily led that they have no minds of their own whatsoever...No, they bring nothing but heartache."

I know these snarky comments are fun and reinforce the modern perception of Elizabeth Bennet as a feminist heroine. However, book Elizabeth doesn't rail against men as a whole; she just wants to find love rather than be forced into an advantageous marriage. Her idea that marriage should be based on love and respect, along with her unwillingness to compromise on that ideal, is what makes her revolutionary, not her complete apathy towards the opposite sex.

"Don't you dare judge me!" While it foreshadows Elizabeth's flawed judgment, this outburst is out of character for Charlotte Lucas, who in the book is level-headed and makes practical decisions. As with the majority of the bad script changes, it is too modern and doesn't fit with the 19th century style language used elsewhere in the script.

Darcy's lack of pride is shown in the modified lines of the first proposal (which were hard to catch because they were spoken super fast):

"I can bear it no longer. The past months have been a torment. I came to Rosings with the single object of seeing you. I had to see you. I've fought against my better judgment, my family's expectation, the inferiority of your birth, my rank and circumstance, all those things, but I'm willing to put them aside and ask you to end my agony. I love you. Most ardently."

These lines completely change the meaning of the first proposal. Apart from the famous opening lines ("In vain I have struggled. It will not do. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you"), Austen makes clear that Darcy still regards his higher social position and Elizabeth's inferior connections as obstacles to their marriage. His first proposal to Elizabeth is a means of getting rid of the suffering that his unrequited love has forced upon him; he still does not accept Elizabeth as his equal, which is why she rejects him in the first place. Clearly he is not "willing to put [social norms] aside" when it comes to "his sense of her inferiority." The modified lines also make Darcy much more romantic by having him state that he came to Rosings to see Elizabeth; the book does not specify that this is the case; he just came on a routine visit to see his aunt and Elizabeth happened to be there. As I said earlier, Elizabeth in the book rejects Darcy because of his lack of respect for her, but in the film, he seems to show nothing but respect for her. They even have an almost-kiss, which doesn't make sense given that she hates him so intensely at this point in the novel.

"He's so, he's so...rich." Elizabeth utters these when trying and failing to find a reason not to visit Pemberley. This declaration does not make sense because Elizabeth has formed in the very least a grudging respect for Mr. Darcy; without access to her internal thoughts, one might take this line as evidence that she still hates Mr. Darcy.

“Just leave me alone!!!” After confronting Lady Catherine, Elizabeth flees to her room to find some alone time. This doesn’t suit Elizabeth’s character because 1) she acts like a temperamental teenager and 2) she is estranged from her family. In the book she gets closer to her family after Darcy’s first proposal, not the other way round. In some JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) articles I read about Pride and Prejudice, the authors observed that Elizabeth isn’t concerned about her family early in the novel; her motivations are largely self-centered, she keeps her head above their foolishness and doesn’t have intimate relationships with anyone in her family with the exception of her father and Jane. Only after she receives the criticisms of her family’s behavior from Mr. Darcy does she look out for her family; for example, by advising her father not to let Lydia go to Brighton (and she becomes right about it harming her family’s reputation). The film also makes Elizabeth even more isolated from her family by omitting the fact that she tells Jane about what happened between her and Darcy. Elizabeth learning to care for her family is an important part of her growth which the film omits.

5. CONCLUSION

I still think this film is worth watching, even though as a purist I disagree with the creative changes made, namely the emphasis on the romance over the social comedy. It is obvious that the screenwriter/director didn't strive to replicate the book exactly and aimed for a romantic re-interpretation.

The film has had a positive impact since it introduced a lot of people to Jane Austen, including me.

Here’s my story: when the movie aired on TV, my mother, who is a 1995 die-hard, started ranting about her hate for this version, so I picked up the book so that I could watch and compare.

As a romance movie it is excellent, because it has plenty of sexual tension and quotable romantic lines, along with a couple we can root for. The set design, music, and set design also make watching the movie an experience. It's very easy to love this movie just for the cottage core aesthetics (although aesthetics cannot cover up the flaws of this film).

On a side note, I find it funny that the Wikipedia article for this film states that it "failed to have the cultural influence" of the 1995 BBC miniseries. In fact, many people my age (17 or 18 years old) who have read the book consider this movie the definitive version of Pride and Prejudice and some don't even know that the 1995 miniseries exists!

Whether you love or hate this film, all I ask is that you don't call it Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

@colonelfitzwilliams @appleinducedsleep @obscurelittlebird @austengivesmeserotonin @princesssarisa @dahlia-coccinea @firawren @cobaltzosia

[sometimesrosy]

Hey. It's been a long time since I had a question. Maybe the 100's demise was the reason.

Now coming to my actual query. This past year I have binged numerous shows ranging from American to korean dramas or Turkish dizis. There is certain thing that I have felt and noticed throughout i.e., the woman characters aren't given even a slight leeway by the audience. If the even make a slight mistake, the audience remembers it always to stand against that character. Whereas if there is a male villain, people gets cheerful seeing even a slight bit of humanity in him. They even wait for its redemption.

Let me take an example of a Turkish show "kara sevda(black love)". A one line synopsis can be put like- two leads who love each other endlessly but can never be together. So, the villain in that show is beyond redemption. That character has fallen so far off that there is no coming back. But still when he is playing with a baby, people's comments are like 'best moment of the show.' 'see he is such a good person'. 'the female lead should accept his love'. Am like what?

And if I tell you about the female lead. She is a good person at heart who is sacrificing love for family. And she is labelled "selfish" by audience. 'She doesn't deserve the male lead' etc. And you know I too felt like that for the majority of the show until I reached the point of self reflect.

Even Clarke from the 100 faced so much hate that there wasn't any visible backlash when in the end the makers made her a villain. The backlash was for Bellamy death and stupid end instead.

Looking through tv series, it's so easy to see why tv or films doesn't have female anti heroes. Male anti heroes are so easy to find and also widely successful like Damon from tvd or Klaus.

What is your take?

Yup!

Yes.

Definitely.

You are absolutely correct. The leeway for female characters to show human imperfection is very, very thin. Meanwhile, a guy can literally blow up a planet, kill his beloved father, have temper tantrums with kicking and screaming and torture the female main characters and fandom-- and the creators-- think that makes him a hero. And the requirements for his redemption, if there are any at all amounts to:

WOOPSIE! I'M SOWWY.

I simply do NOT understand that phenomenon.

I mean, I get the need to relate to darker characters, morally gray characters, to explore our own negative impulses...but the whole tendency is, for me anyway, given a more sinister light when you compare how the audience tends to treat these outright villainous male characters compared to even SLIGHTLY morally gray female characters. Maybe just flawed.

It also interferes with satisfying redemption arcs. Because YES watching someone face their dark past and attempt to become better and be redeemed is a great story... but if male characters only have to wear a cape and be hot to be redeemed.... then that's not a satisfying redemption arc. And if women can't do ANYTHING to be redeemed because they are considered irredeemably selfish or whatever for the same flaws someone's Hot Dark Badboy smirks about and isn't even sorry for? Then we barely even get redemption stories for women.

And that's part of the problem, isn't it? Women aren't allowed the same representation as men... even as flawed characters.

The point of good representation is not to represent only the best, most perfect, most desirable, most successful type of people. The point is to allow everyone of any sex, race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, ability, etc to take part in the full spectrum of humanity in our stories, good and bad and mediocre. A female Mary Sue is just the female version your general male hero. One is considered bad storytelling the other is taken as The Way It Should Be.

Women are not allowed to have flaws in most of our pop culture, or women are ghettoized into only women's fic or romance or YA, or women take backseat to male villains, or whatever.

I'm writing a book where the woman abandoned her child, and she sleeps around and cons people and avoids commitment. I purposely wrote her to be unlikable.... or rather, she's not unlikable, she's clever and funny and weird, but she has characteristics that women aren't supposed to have. She essentially acts like a male anti-hero, until her call to action and she is forced to face her past mistakes. But I know that these are things that audiences say are irredeemable for women. Abandon her own child?? No. Not allowed. Even though plenty of male characters go off on adventures leaving wife and child behind and it isn't even considered a character flaw, just... a male adventurer. Or honestly, just a guy. Sure one who's imperfect, but that old ball and chain was probably the worst, right? He had to move on and now he has a tragic backstory and complexity and oh the audience will probably either want to be him or want to be with him, because, that's how these things work.

Not saying that characters shouldn't be dark, do bad things, have flaws, be anti-heroes, have redemption arcs, or have a deep, multilayered villainy.

But I am saying we might want to be a little more critical about what we consider irredeemable for certain people and what war crimes and abuse we let some characters get away with in the name of bold (white) masculinity.

IS the nature of being a (white) man we look up to someone who destroys other people?

I think that toxic masculinity IS seen as sexy. Unfortunately, that's one of the reasons it's seeped into our culture. Manly (white) men who abandon kids and kill without remorse, but with muscles. Manly (white) men who murder whole regions because bad things happened to them, and smolder while doing it. Manly (white) men who commit genocide regularly, but fall for the heroine and save her once. Manly (white) men who are serial killers but with an intriguing depth.

tbh there's lots more to say on the topic, some of it very controversial. These are the stories we like to hear and the characters we love. And it might be rooted in the toxic masculinity that our society has been selling to us as propaganda for decades, if not centuries-- but we don't like to be told to examine our biases, our tastes, our preferences, or our beliefs. It's threatening to our sense of self.

However, that is how you unravel all sorts of toxic belief systems, from misogyny to racism to homophobia to bigotry of all kinds. I added the (white) to this post after I read through it, because I realized non white male characters are not allowed this leeway, either. So this phenomenon is generally (not always) limited to white men. Why?????

my theory? we're still making the colonialists the heroes of the story, friends.

[hereisisa]

Why do people dislike K and KA is it because it's hetro? or because it doesn't fit Anna's personality? I'm just generally curious, I think he's a good part of Frozen just as the sisters are, and the opening scene of the first film was Young kristoff and sven.

There are several reasons and they change depending on the fan you ask....I can tell you how I see it, of course.

The fact he’s in the opening sequence it’s irrelevant. The story is about the sisters, not about the whole group. The leads are Elsa and Anna, and everybody else is “supporting” (Kristoff, Sven and Olaf).

It’s clear if you take a look at the screentime too. Even Grand Pabbie is part of the movie, but he’s not “important” as Elsa and Anna.

So let’s start saying he’s not a protagonist and the fact that he’s in the story doesn’t mean I have to like him.

That said....He represents the “old style Disney happy ending”, where a princess marries a dude and that’s it. I don’t like the old style Disney happy endings, or I would be here to chat about Snow White, Cinderella, and not about a movie where the TRUE LOVE is the one between the SISTERS.

This is to explain why I don’t like the idea of Anna having a boyfriend. It’s nothing new, I’ve seen it hundreds of times before and I would like something better for her. (Let’s ignore my ship for a minute here, cause it’s obviously never going to happen!) I don’t really feel the need, on a movie that seems so “different” in terms of “familiar love = true love” to have one of the sisters paired to a dude. It’s unnecessary. Yes, Anna wants to find a boyfriend in Frozen, but later she also realizes that her true love is her sister (it’s beautifully said in the musical) and we see how she didn’t want to be alone, so much that she decided to marry the first dude who was nice to her.

Now, more about this specific dude...Kristoff.

He was decent and funny in Frozen, no complaints here. And yet for the reasons I just stated I didn’t want to see him as Anna’s “happy ending”.

Frozen 2 changed my perspective a bit tho, in an anti-K way tho.

The promotion: listening to the cast talking about those 2 stupid lines he said over and over, sometimes more than Elsa and Anna, was a HUGE turn off. It made me just dislike him.It was the epitome of a “man are rewarded for doing the bare minimum” and I’m allergic to this bullshit. (even if they probably did it cause Disney decided to milk every good message out of this story and they tried to promote his 2 lines as an anti-toxic masculinity message).His story: his only purpose in the movie was to propose. And why I LIKE that he wasn’t given a better story and more screentime, you can’t convince me he wasn’t annoying, inappropriate, whiny, and got rewarded for doing the bare minimum.

Like every white man in our society.

Should they give him a better story in the future? No. This was more than enough, thank you. They can’t change my opinion (because the first points I’ve listed aren’t gonna change, so....!) at least keep his screentime to the bare minumum.

I don’t like whoever takes the focus away from the girls. And no, it’s not because “it’s hetero” as you said, cause I dislike honeymaren too for the same reason.

Even ignoring my ship (since it’s not canon and will never be), I prefer when Elsa and Anna are the focus of the story and they are focused on each other. That’s what the franchise is about after all, and that’s why I like it. And of course I don’t like changes.

I apologize for my english, it’s late here and I’m tired.

[falsebooles123]

Dairy of a Horror Buff 8.21.22

CW: Jeremey Screamerclauz Bullshit, Police Brutality, Spreadsheats.

ugh have you ever made a spreadsheet before. Cause thats what I did I last night instead of watching a movie. I don't do it often but sometimes doing something before bed that isn't the endless consumption of media is refreshing. On that note lets get into the Endless Consumption of Media.

oh no, my porn. Also pic of said spreadsheet .

so since I was such a smart cookie and planned ahead I decided to split up all of these into categories which I think I have 11 off???

But one of those is that BBC mini-series, so lets chill and watch one of each if theres any available.

Crypt TV

Stereoscope (2017) dir. Alexandr Babaev

So since this is getting near the end of the Challenge and because I'm not gonna review all 120+ Films I've mentioned in my YT Video I thought going forward I only watch my favorite shorts from Crypt TV.

This is one of their earlier films which is why I've seen it and its peak Crypt TV. Young women gets a viewfinder in a creepy box and begins playing with it. Everytime she touches the slide she suddenly hears some invisable danger near here.

The best part of this is what it doesn't answer. Does using the viewfinder summon ghosts, does it capture them, are they even real???

Overall its just so well done its one of those films that its not supposed to make sense from a lore perspective it just gives you a really interesting idea and plays off of it.

I realized not everybody knows what a viewmaster is. Its this bitch.

ALTER

Don't Die First ALTER dir. DANIEL FOSTER

"Hello Welcome to Don't Die First, helping black people not die from scary siturations since 1929".

Ok this was literally everything I needed in life but also understand that this goes a really dark place really quickly.

The whole Premise is a hotline for black people stuck in horror movie plots. At first this is loving fun satire as a hwite myself theres something jovial about the concept that white people are always doing the most to open hell portals or summon ghosts and that puts there black and gay friends in danger.

This wouldn't have happened if Frank could have kept it in his pants.

I love the concept love the humor. Even though I've never really had a "Don't go into the basement guys" moment in horror I love people making fun of formaliac horror tropes. I am a horror buff after all.

But then they get a call from a men whose not dealing with a poltergeist or a wearwolf but a Karen. and suddenly the fantasy of horror sheds its skin. Like a werewolf!

sorry I was trying to lightened the tone but I don't think I can here.

Horror is always a response to fears in society. Vampires repressent a corrupt aristocracy, Zombies represented white fears of slave revolts, Slashers are a product of our sudden culteral knowledge of serial killers in the '70s.

Horror has and always will be the way of metaphorizing pain and suffering creating a scrapegoat that we can defeat. Horror is Grendel, is Apropas, it is Entropy.

To us a vampire or a revenent is absurd, a culteral object that is devoid of historic meaning but for those that lived through that time it had real wait to it. White People get to live in superstition, cast there fears on superbugs or human trafficking onto supernatural beings but for Black People, (and presumingly other marginilized persons), they don't have that luxercy. They have to live in a world where their monsters are considered heros.

A literal monster is real life horror. A horror movie they have to live with always.

Just some food for thought.

Independant

100% Beef dir. Mike Batecko

Ok so it looks like in 2015 a company called Four4 Competition made a "very short film competition" what does that mean exactly?? How Short are we talking about. What do you win if you have the best movie???

Honestly nobody really know a lot of the stuff I could find on the contest is pretty much useless. Dead Links, Vague Tweets I'm sure If I tried a little harder I could have found something more tasty but this is a movie watching challenge not a lost media one.

but yeah this is a very short film for a very short film competition. its lterally 34 seconds long a women looks down at her food and realizes that soylent green is people. Sorry for the spoilers.

Animation

Affection (2012) dir Jeremy ScreamerClauz

So Thres this old SMBC omic where they lampshade the fact that superman probably has a weird alien dick and this is basically the same plot.

Some dude just wants to touch a titty but oh no he just had to have a transcenedent religous experience in a crack house. Theres this type of ethos to Scremerclauz work which I can almost descirbe as self-hatred or religious guilt. This contrast between Sexual Attraction and Revulsion. I don't quite get it but theres definetly something deeper in there.

Early Cinema

Blue Beard (1901) dir. Georges Melies

Oh wow this was lovely. One thing I love about Georges Melies is that while his films tend to be a little heard to get into he really understood his craft. The story tells a pretty basic retelling of Blue Beard but theres a really fantastic upgrade to his aestetic style. His sets are more built up with actually doors and different entryways and it just sells the scenery, theres a few amazing effects here like when Bluebeard is dragging the bride down the stairs feels so lifelike. You can really see how his films are starting to sing and that suspension of disbelief is starting to melt away.

Silent Era

The Furies (1934) Dir. Slavko Vorkapich

So apparently Vorkapich is whats known as a montagist he would make opening sequences for movies that were seperate from the directors, The closest thing I can imagine in modern cinema is Eli Roth's film-within-a-film Nations Pride.

So The Furies is interesting, we see multiple shots of blood falling onto pavement followed by a furie rising from the bloodshed. The three furies flit across the new york skyline followed by three vignettes one for each sister of wrath. Basically they just break a window cause they want to see a peep show.

perverts.

Experiemental

Sissy Boy Slap Party (2004) dir. Guy Maddin

Ok but why does this feel like a Toby Ross Porno????

So we appear in yet another homoerotic landscape a tropic island were are navy boys are lying recumbent shirtless sweating.

and remember no slapping.

To be honest I don't really understand 1st. why this is considered horror and 2nd. I really don't understand what this is about.

on one hand maybe I'm supposed to understand this as like a metaphor of toxic masculinity and the slapping is the way a hegemonic society keeps men from gender expansive expression? Like there sissy boys so like its a self lothing thing?

But the more I think about this I think Guy Maddin just wanted to watch bunch of men slap each other commedically. Who knows maybe its a sex thing????

UnFiction

Internet Story dir. Adam Butcher

Ok so this apparently does have an ARG behind it through I would have to do some digging to find where to start exploring.

Essentially this is a story about a story. An arg about an Arg. Also it references the caunterbury tales which always makes me feel smart when I take that off the bookshelf.

PSA's

Catwalk (1985) dir. Unknown.

Ok so this is another one of the Dumb Animals campagain Commericials. This one features women walking down a runwear in luxerience fur coats. They proceed to spin around splashing the audience in BLOOD BLOOD OF THE FAlLEN. IT TAKES 40 DUMB ANIMALS BUT ONLY 1 OF YOU SELFISH SACKS OF SHIT TO WEAR IT.

Ok bitches I thikn thats the end of it. Thanks for playing. I think I'll skip the blogging for tomorrow but I'm gonna try to add a few more before the end of the month.