#subversive cinema

[schlock-luster-video]

On September 27, 2005, The Mutations was released on DVD by Subversive Cinema.

[doloresdisparue]

i think one reason why the musical works so well for me is that music is one of the few ways that a changing medium can come close to emulating the effect of nabokovs dazzling prose. music affects (many) people on an emotional level and catchy music and rhymes can pull you along just as fast if you let your guard down. there's a reason "dante, petrach and poe" is maybe the catchiest tune in the show - it's also humbert at his most blatantly abject. if you don't listen to the lyrics you're bopping along before you know it even though this man with his lovely singing is going into great detail about the sex appeal of (quote) "barely pubescent" children.

just like in the novel humbert is pulling out all the stops of the medium to get the audience on his side, utilising the trappings of musical and emotions associated with certain numbers and types of music to package the awful things he's saying - and the lyrics are more explicit than most adaptations ever dared to be regarding the full horror of the story. you could write an analysis like this about probably each of the songs individually (and ideally someone who knows more about music theory than me should do that) but especially with "dante" and "lolita" the love song/lament that either opens or closes the show depending on the version the lyrics are so spine crawling (arguably also tell me, tell me, though the context does more than the lyrics there) while the music invites you immediately to side with the figure performing them.

any adaptation that can't rely fully on nabokov's prose needs to find something equally seductive and that's a hurdle for most other mediums that i think really bizarrely makes the musical stage very well suited to tell "lolita".

[eternalsailormom]

If you haven't seen Under Paris and plan to and also hate spoilers this essay is not for you yet, come back later! Anyway ok so this fucking banger of a movie finally replaced Deep Blue Sea as my favorite shark movie of all time. The whole movie was a statement while also having a good time. Deep Blue sea had a good foundation, script, the famous Samuel L. Jackson rallying speech (So we're not going to fight ANYMORE!), took itself seriously except for well timed LL Cool J scenes, and didn't skimp on graphics or shark time. Also that ending credits song. Perfection. But THIS movie had the foundation, the script, the acting, the graphics, and THAT ENDING THO. The meanings behind the movie itself and why the ending happened the way it did was just *chef's kiss*. DBS has specifically only one human--Dr. McAlester--who is made to be at fault for the makos becoming smart and vengeful, so as long as she died by shark, per test audiences, then the movie ending with all 3 sharks dead is seen as ok. Even though humanity was at fault the sharks still overall need to be bested because they're smart sharks and smart sharks are bad. Under Paris was meant to be a satirical take on French politics, greed, climate change vs human decisions that always make things worse, and ultimately the end was an anti-Hollywood poke at how the sharks always die at the end. Not only do the sharks live, they win. Multiple things happen in the movie that underscore the poor decisions of humans for hundreds of years thus leading to climate change, greed and our own hubris. The WWII shells polluting the Siene lead to destruction generations later. The pollution of the oceans leading to the new species of shark Lilith becomes. The refusal to stop the Olympic triathlon due to money and image taking precedent over human lives. The machinery of politics over humanity. The sharks win because they deserve to take back the world we're ruining, because being deadly and able to quickly parthenogenetically reproduce thanks to our polluting shouldn't be their death sentence, and they win because we can't fix the problems we've created by making more poor decisions. The main characters in the film all keep making poor decisions that lead to either their deaths or the destruction of nature, and that was purposeful. Sharks are vital to the oceans and Lilith would repopulate the waters in no time, fixing the damage we've done to shark populations. Bruh when the explosions started and Paris started crumbling and I realized the sharks were going to win, I screamed. 15/10

Also here is a link to further reading because of course I researched this to make sure I wasn't reading too much into it and backstory is fun 🦈

"Under Paris’ Director Used Hollywood Tricks to Make an “Anti-Hollywood” Netflix Hit. Xavier Gens, who was born the same year that Steven Spielberg released 'Jaws,' dives deep into the making of his subversive shark feature."

https://www-hollywoodreporter-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/under-paris-ending-netflix-movie-1235933114/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17197944455506&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fmovies%2Fmovie-features%2Funder-paris-ending-netflix-movie-1235933114%2F

[mariocki]

Evil Dead II (Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn, 1987)

"Honey... you're holding my hand too tight."

"Baby, I ain't holding your hand."

[parallel-awhite]

Bluebeard's Castle / a novel by Anna Biller

I first encountered polymath auteur/cinéaste Anna Biller when she screened her Cal Arts thesis film Three Examples of Myself as a Queen (1994) at Beyond Baroque Literary/Arts Center in Venice, California. The film was a tour-de-force - a straight-faced hilarious surreal camp fantasy musical that Biller wrote, starred in, directed, costumed, composed and set-designed. Around that time I was also lucky enough to catch her live stage production, The Lady Cat, in which she starred as a be-whiskered furred sexy feline. Those glorious offerings have since been followed by films such as The Hypnotist (2001), A Visit from the Incubus (2001), Viva (2007) and The Love Witch (2016), each of which has been a gleaming iconic/iconoclastic constellation in the Anna Biller firmament.

Now, years later, I've just finished the audio version of Biller's debut novel, Bluebeard's Castle (Verso Fiction, 2023). Fascinating, complex and interwoven with stealth historic, cinematic and literary hat-tips, the novel absolutely felt like an Anna Biller production. Biller's indelible mise en scène over the years has been so gloriously signature with its unapologetic embrace of nostalgic high fashion and cinematic kitsch that the novel unspooled in my head as a dazzling film punctuated by bits of quintessential Biller-esque theatrical side-business: naked men painted white posing as statues; costumed dancers performing a sensual pas-de-deux between a caterpillar and a butterfly.

The book is a true-to-form romance novel that follows the erotic evolution of romance novelist Judith as she is drawn ever deeper into the gravitational pull of a devilishly handsome cad. But Biller subverts the genre by confronting the reader with the nightmarish horror of the narcissistic demonic, all the while seducing us with inescapable eroticism, daring us not to turn the page (or keep listening to the audio - convincingly read with Gothic intensity by Samantha Hydeson).

The juxtaposition of romance novel genre and rigorous razor-sharp psychological insight of Bluebeard's Castle made my head spin. In vivid Biller-esque fashion, the dark momentum of the work made me feel like I was being strangled with a gold satin cord and lowered into a red velvet lined coffin in a symbolic death. This is a filmmaker's novel with big dreamlike technicolor impact and Hitchcock-like precision.

I read somewhere that Biller had originally pitched Bluebeard's Castle as a film and, rather than wait for the capricious wheels of cinematic fate to spin in her favor, took to the novel form and made it happen.

Here's holding out hope that this scintillating work gets a green light. Would be epic.

[pointless-letters]

FRAGILE MASCULINITY: Amazingly, it looks like this one is still single. Form an orderly queue, ladies!

[sumarex]

CULT CONTROVÉRSIA

Importante: A lista à seguir tem como único objetivo promover um estudo cultural, social e econômico das histórias e personagens em questão.

Kids, 1995, Dublado Pt

Elefante, 2003, Dublado Pt

Made In Britain, 1982, Original En

Rambo, 1982, Original En

Eu, Christiane F., 13 anos..., 1981, Dublado Pt

Sete Minutos no Paraíso, 1986, Dublado Pt

Precisamos Falar Sobre o Kevin, 2011, Dublado Pt

The Master, 2012, Dublado Es

O Lugar Onde Tudo Termina, 2012, Dublado Pt

Entre Nós, 2013, Original Pt

Dancer In The Dark, 2000, Original En

Last Days, 2005, Original En

A Estrada, 2009, Dublado Pt

O Congresso Futurista, 2013, Dublado Pt

O Quinto Elemento, 1997, Dublado Pt

Desaconselhável para menores de 18 anos.

[schlock-luster-video]

On January 29, 2008, The Mutations was released on DVD by Subversive Cinema.

[angelmotifs]

i sound so corny bro but TRUST MEEE trust me take my hand expand your horizons you're all unemployed you have the time i know you do

[miumiuszz]

garotas brasileiras que só são depressivas, ficam o dia no pinterest imaginando uma vida melhor, escutam harry styles, mitski, radiohead...

me sigam!!!!

[comicaurora]

What are your thoughts on guardians vol.3? (If you have watched it) I went into it, expecting it went to the garbage like the rest of the mcu, but I was pleasantly surprised by its creativity, trope subversion, and how it wrapped up the previously unresolved arks of its characters.

That's what I've heard!

The thing is, Guardians 3 could be the most transcendent work of cinema ever made, and I'd probably still feel little to no motivation to watch it at this point. It's not Guardians's fault - it's just suffering from the same problem that superhero comics have been struggling with for decades: no matter how good an individual arc or run is, absolutely nothing good lasts or matters in the long term, and the stories are shaped in such a way that "the long term" is the only thing anyone gets to build towards.

Whenever I complain about the MCU I get a handful of people loudly complaining about my complaining, with the general thesis that if I don't like it I shouldn't watch it or talk about it - if I'm not having fun, just stop engaging with it. And the thing is, I have. I am intellectually interested in why this massive franchise is fumbling the bag so hard, which is why I still check in on it sometimes, but I've long since stopped turning to the MCU for uncritical entertainment. And even the good movies or shows with a lot of interesting ideas - good character arcs, fun concepts, interesting planting for future payoff - don't draw me in anymore, because they're hooked into a massive moneymaking machine that will scrap and squander anything if they think it'll make them more in the quarter. It doesn't matter how good the writing is, because the writers are not allowed to tell a complete, finished story, and they have no control over what happens to their characters outside of their own script.

Captain America's arc was set up from literally minute one to answer one burning question at the core of his character: does a world without a war still need Captain America? After that incredibly basic tee-up at the end of First Avenger, half a dozen movies failed to come up with a reason to say "yes," and now Steve is retired for good after getting fumbled through four different storylines that couldn't even pretend that they needed him (the unused Chekhov's Phone from the end of Civil War still haunts me). The foundational arc of his entire character never happened because nobody bothered to keep track of it past a single movie.

Taika did something interesting with Thor in Ragnarok - take away Mjolnir, force him to recognize what it means to be the god of thunder, give him a very Odin-y missing eye - and the very next movie undid all of it. Just kidding, never mind, here's an eye and a new weapon and also his old weapon again, and in one more movie we're even gonna give him his hair back, probably as an apology for all the completely unironic fatphobia we're gonna slather him in for two and a half hours. I'm not even surprised Love And Thunder was such an overblown mess that barely took itself seriously - why would Taika bother trying to give Thor another arc when the powers that be will just roll it back in six months anyway?

I hear Rocket Raccoon has a fantastic arc in this movie. That's great, and demonstrates that he's being written by a writer that deeply cares about him. But he's part of the MCU, and the MCU doesn't let anything end, so if current patterns hold, Rocket is going to continue to serve as quippy plushie-bait for the next dozen movies and none of that depth is going to come through in the long term. Hell, since they're making Kang noises for the Next Big Threat and Kang's entire gimmick is rewriting timelines, literally none of this is guaranteed to matter. By next year, it might not have even happened anymore.

The MCU has successfully shaped itself into a paradigm where the bright spots of good writing are overridden and lost as soon as the writers room turns over, and that makes it really hard for me to muster up the enthusiasm to watch even a really good movie that's locked into the exact same grist mill as everything else. I'm glad people liked it, I hope it gets to stay good this time - I just have no desire to watch it.

[lej222]

Literary Allusions and Pop Culture References in ASLFUA

After School Lessons is a series that has minimal plot, but great underlying themes and references to other famous creations/pop culture moments. I thought it would be fun to collect as many as I can in this post and their possible narrative connection, not necessarily in order. :)

Cheol & Miae

One of the biggest running gags of the series is that the main characters have the same names as the famous Korean musical duo Cheol and Miae. The group was formed in 1992, with Cheol as the rapper and Miae as the singer. Their single, 'Why do you' became a huge hit and was referenced in ASLFUA plenty of times. Obviously, the main joke here is that the singer Miae was taller than rapper Cheol and they were only friends, while Unripe Apples Cheol is taller than Miae.

Nostradamus

The prophecy of Nostradamus said that in the 7th month of 1999 a great king of terror would descend from the sky and bring end to the world. Which makes it even more interesting that the supernatural powers in the story started to be very active around July with the end of the first term and the start of the summer break.

Miae's posters on the wall: E.T (1982) and The X-Files (1993)

Interestingly enough, both feature aliens. E.T The Extra-Terrestrial might be more interesting for us readers, as it features a young boy named Elliott who befriends an alien. In one of the most famous scenes of the movie, E.T. is riding Elliott's bike in his basket, and the bicycle lifts off from the ground and two are shown flying in front of the full moon. In fact, in a poll made by Universal it was voted as the most memorable movie scene in 100 years of cinema.

Needless to say, there are some ovbious similarities with our story - the boy with the bike, the strange friend, the moon symbolism. In fact, Cheol is always looking at the moon so it wouldn't be a surprise if it was inspired by Spielberg's movie, plus one of the most impactful scenes of aslfua is when Cheol allows Miae to ride his bicycle with him in ep 95, the scene that I personally consider the end of the first part of the story.

Backstreet Boys

Miae is singing the 1997 hit song 'As Long As You Love Me'. Miae, like a typical teenager, likes boybands like the Fire Boys who might be the parody of The Backstreet Boys😃

Romeo and Juliet

There are quite a few references to the 1996 Romeo and Juliet movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. On 3 separate cover pages, Miae is portrayed as Juliet, while Cheol and Jisu are dressed like Romeo. There's also a scene where Miae imagines being Juliet who is not allowed to meet her Romeo when she cannot see Cheol. I wonder if Jisu will also have a Romeo-like element in his story that could create a similar situation, it would be an amazing foreshadowing element.

Man in Black

It looks like Soonkki really loves her alien references, because we also have the 1997 movie starring Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, who play agents tasked with monitoring extraterrestrial life on Earth.

Titanic

Another movie that is mentioned many times in the story, the Titanic (1997) is one that Miae seemingly loves and has watched many times. In fact, it's funny how her favourite part is the car scene because it really shows us readers that Miae is interested in the idea of love, even if she doesn't know what it truly entails to be in a relationship.

Green Day

People born before the 2000s all know that characters listening to the American band's songs were often the slacker/stoner stereotypes. I've also written a post about how Jisu is seemingly the subversion of the 90s slacker/stoner and nerd archetype, while Cheol seems to be the subversion of the jock trope. Jisu is listening to Basket Case (1994) that has become the anthem of many slackers/stoners in the 90s, and weirdly fits his character really well considering Jisu is usually described as a strange person. I've also made several posts about Jisu possibly being on the spectrum, and it's interesting to see how Jisu expresses himself with the songs he listens to, no wonder his hobby is listening to music. If we consider Jisu might be bad at expressing his feelings through his body language, it makes this scene even more precious.

Speed

Cheol invites Miae to watch a movie together and it happens to be the 1994 classic starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Reeves plays a police officer who has to save the passengers of a bus without the speed of the bus dropping below 50 miles per hour, otherwise a bomb would explode the vehicle. It's one of the most creative action films ever made, but if someone wants to watch it, I advice not to watch the sequel because it is awful lol.

Scream

Miae wants Cheol to join the academy kids watching an R-rated movie which leads to a hilarious misunderstanding. To Cheol's relief, the movie turns out to be the horror movie Scream (1996).

Shakespeare and Carl Jung

Like I've mentioned in my supernatural involvement post under ep 116, we get a close-up of 2 interesting posters.

One of them is about the forest in Midsummer Night's Dream by Shakespeare. The 4 central characters in the play all get entangled with the supernatural, and the forest symbolizes a world where the line between reality and fantasy is blurred. Dreams play an important role in the story as they are sometimes real, sometimes simply dreams. In aslfua, we also have dreams, a forest where young Miae and Cheol played, a stone tower fairy that allegedly grants wishes and an unknown supernatural power that talks to Miae.

The coincidences poster is likely a reference to Carl Jung's synchronicity, a concept that states that seemingly meaningful coincidences have a deeper meaning. One has to realize the connection between their psyche and the material world to experience synchronicity, so basically you have to notice the coincidences that keep happening and put meaning to them. Because these coincidences have no rational explanation, they can be proof for a deeper order in the universe, almost like destiny, no wonder Jung used this concept to argue for the existence of the paranormal. A simple example: you really cannot decide what to study in the future, but have seen many posters on your way about one school. You go home and it pops up on the Internet. You start to wonder if it's a coincidence, and decide that it's a sign from above and eventually choose it. You've experienced synchronicity.

-> this happens when seemingly unrelated events become meaningful to you. Miae wonders how she keeps bumping into Cheol. She says he must have come to her neighborhood because of her wish. Miae experiences synchronicity when it comes to Cheol. Or we could say Miae acknowledges a deeper order in the universe that, through coincidences, let her meet Cheol again. Jisu also notices that he keeps meeting Miae through coincidences, he acknowledges the deeper order, he even remarks it's fun, but he goes beyond and says he feels like there's a higher power involved. Miae has no idea about her coincidences with Jisu so she her psyche doesn't make the connection with the material world. So we have synchronicity experienced by: Miae->Cheol and Jisu->Miae.

Jisu, the grateful magpie

Jisu's backstory gives us a reference to a famous Korean folktale about a man who saved a group of baby magpies from a snake and in return the magpies sacrificed themselves to protect him. Here, the illustration clearly shows Miae as the person who uses her bow and arrow to kill the snake, while we know she called Jisu a magpie when they were kids. Throughout the story, we see Jisu trying to protect Miae and repay the favor without much luck, which pretty much foreshadows one big possible role for Jisu in the storyline, no wonder he's the one who's aware of Shim bullying Miae. It's no coincidence either how in the present she thinks Jisu resembles more of a bald eagle, a predatory animal.

Stone tower

Although it's not an allusion, I wanted to include this one because it's a very famous superstition in Korea. People used to pray to the mountain Gods by building stone pagodas so their wishes would be answered. This tradition is still alive, though nowadays most people tell their wishes or pray for good luck. You usually put your stones on an existing stone tower because it also shows how people are interconnected and how you should respect others so your wish can come true through the wishes of others. That's why you should never destroy a pagoda that somebody else made, and it's also very disrespectful. Miae also makes wishes to the tower so Cheol can become her friend and he would one day come to her neighborhood. When Cheol wants to give her a book, he accidentally falls on the pagoda and injures himself.

The Matrix

The Matrix (1999), one of the most famous movies of all time, is about how reality is actually an illusion, and people can be blinded about the truth about their own existence. The main character Neo, played by Keanu Reeves, is someone who awakens within the Matrix, similarly to what we see in The Truman Show starring Jim Carrey.

In one of the most iconic moments of the movie, the oracle tells Neo not to worry about the vase, while Neo doesn't know what she's talking about until he accidentally drops a vase. This scene poses many different questions about predetermination and free will. Was Neo's act predestined by prior experince, free will, or maybe both?

If you look at my aslfua screenshot, you can notice the code from Matrix in green. And what happens in the scene? Miae and Jisu injure a plant in a pot. An accident, right?? Well, depending on how you interpret it based on the movie. And what does Jisu do? He intentionally throws the pot and destroys the plant. Can Jisu's act be considered a sign of free will? Because that is what he tells Miae- that he is not a bully, so he took the blame by flipping over the plant. Jisu might just be a glitch in the system if you know what I mean :D

The Bible

Last but not least, we have this super symbolic illustration at the end of ep2 after Miae meets Cheol. The biblical allusion is obvious, Miae is holding out a green apple to Cheol, a half-eaten apple. In the first part Miae is the one providing her knowledge to Cheol in order to help him mature. :)

There are probably way more references, but I'm kind of tired so I might add others in the future. :) If anyone read this whole thing, thank you so much! :D

[mariocki]

Funny Games (1997)

"Why are you doing this to us?"

"Why not?"

[finalgirlsamwinchester]

today's thoughts before passing out: the demon blood plot reading as a metaphoric fear of miscegenation, a result of classic Western tropes told through a Horror framework.

demon blood is a boundary crossing substance, invasive and transformative. Sam violated in the crib functions on one level as a rape metaphor, but its done so through demonic blood coming in to dilute his human blood. the violation then, comes in as a literal theft of identity. his body becomes the literal battleground between two forces - the domestic world of his family vs. the invading, monstrous outsider. Azazel snatches and preys on civilised children from the crib as a means of recruiting them to his tribe army, literally corrupting them on a bodily level, claiming them from their blood families as his own. and the more demon blood Sam drinks, the less 'human' he becomes (the less of his family's blood in him). Dean's anger over Ruby also ties into Sam's sexual relationship with her, of which the blood drinking is a component. the blood drinking is especially transgressive because it echoes deep-rooted settler colonial anxieties, expressed through the language of pop culture - fears over losing one's blood, family, and identity to a savage Other.

(4.04)

(4.21)

what got me started on this line of thinking was a recent rewatch of John Ford's The Searchers (1956), a movie so ingrained in the modern American cultural mythos that nearly every first year cinema studies course makes it required viewing lmao. it's a subversive Western, concerned with exploring the porous boundary dividing white settler communities from Native American communities, the defining line between the 'civilised'/'uncivilised', the colonial subject and the savage. it was released during an era when America was grappling with undoing laws around racial segregation, and reflects those anxieties through classic American mythology.

so. Sam is a modern interpretation of Martin and Debbie from that movie, and Dean is a modern variant on its leading anti-hero, Ethan Edwards (rather John is our initial Ethan figure, but we spend most of the show with Dean, who takes on his mantle). just to emphasise the connection between the show and this movie - Star Wars heavily references it, and Kripke's always been explicit about this show's two leads as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. well, i'd argue this show definitely owes more to The Searchers than Star Wars does!

Martin is Ethan's adoptive nephew of partial Cherokee descent, made an outsider to his family, by his uncle, at the film's outset due to his blood. he joins his uncle on his revenge mission after a Comanche tribe destroys their home and steals his adoptive sister - Debbie. this mission becomes his coming-of-age journey into rugged frontier manhood, as much as it is his path towards integration into white, 'civilised' society.

the protagonist of the film is Ethan, a soldier who gets consumed by his seven year long, bloody, vengeance-fuelled quest to recover his niece. when he finds Debbie, however, to his dismay he discovers she's no longer the 'pure' innocent he remembers. upon finding out that she's married to the tribe's chief - he literally disowns her as his blood kin, and at one point, even tries to kill her. Martin becomes the one to save her from his uncle's shot and the one to convince her to return home. he later convinces Ethan to recommit to rescuing her, and he ends up doing so.

(15.17 - Sam over s4 functions as a Debbie figure, but Jack also takes up her role. Dean disowns him as Ethan disowns his niece)

over the movie, we see Ethan descend into ever increasing violence and 'wildness', grown closer to his enemy after years spent on the frontier, hunting them down. Martin gets to go home, his civilising mission completed as he marries into a white family. Ethan though, stands at the threshold in the iconic concluding shot below. he's been transformed by frontier violence to the point he no longer belongs to the domestic, civilised world. he wanders back out into the desert, alone.

(1.14)

anyways. Supernatural owes so much of its dna to the classic Western, and to this movie in particular. what The Searchers was to collective white American anxieties over desegregation in the late 50s, this show was to collective white American anxieties over multiculturalism at the new millenium, in the wake of 9/11. Sam's demon blood is a critical defining line between him and his brother, as Martin's mixed race status is the defining line between him and his uncle. 'monstrosity' on this show metaphorically stands in for savagery; one brother gets thrown out onto the frontier, a journey towards 'taming' his own nature. and another brother drifts further and further away from civilised society the longer he spends fighting at the frontier, protecting civilisation from its monsters. 'blood don't end with family' comes to a screeching halt when it addresses the prospect of monstrosity. what is demon blood standing in for on this show? what does a monster represent, truly? who gets to step over the threshold into civilised society, and what is the price of that acceptance?

[maybe-boys-do-love]

Thai BL isn't lesser. It just has different aesthetic goals. It often prioritizes what some would call a theatrical style to filmmaking over a cinematic one.

Theatrical approaches, in the US at least, are currently associated with older films and television. They're also linked to contemporary shows in what are currently thought of as more conservative genres like youth-oriented cable programming (think Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel), soap operas, and sitcoms.

However, the theatrical style in the west has been at other times very much associated with cutting-edge subversion and queer camp. In the 80s and 90s, for example, counter-cultural cinema projects leaned heavily towards more theatrical approaches in the face of blockbuster corporate sheen. The films grouped into the Queer New Cinema loved to play with this. Consider the bold colors, static shots, and unsubtle dialogue in But I'm a Cheerleader.

In the 50s and 60s, the theatricality of sitcoms was a site of transgressive feminism and gender representations like in Bewitched (see more in The Queer Fantasies of the American Family Sitcom or Camp TV: Trans Gender Queer Sitcom History, among others).

Both those eras used theatricality for a number of reasons: budgetary necessity, subsequent technological limits, but also as a counter to the different kinds of elitism associated with the cinematic style in those periods (intellectual in the 50s and 60s and corporate in the 80s and 90s).

Cinematic style didn't begin to fully emerge anyway until the 1940s and 1950s with lenses and cameras that could depict greater depth and move through the spaces the characters were inhabiting. Before that, theatrical presentation was simply the only option. So Old Hollywood is rife with theatricality, and plenty of of those films still have the power to move audiences and feel surprisingly relevant with their visual and scripted commentary. Camille, with what some consider to be a nearly all-queer cast and main production crew and one of Greta Garbo's best performances, holds up incredibly if you're willing to accept its theatrical diva-licious approach.

But plenty of the Old Hollywood films are also duds along with the other eras mentioned. Theatricality, like cinematic approaches, is not inherently more queer or superior to other forms. They're just styles. As Zadie Smith wrote, "In Britain, we are always doing this: mistaking an aesthetic choice for an ethical one." I'm guessing that tendency is pretty universal, either mistaking aesthetic choices for ethics or, even more often, quality.

Appreciating theatricality will hopefully help you understand other choices in Thai BL with less judgment, though. The comic sound effects, jarring as they might be for western audiences who've had laugh tracks and sound effects sequestered away from much of their 'prestige' media, are an artistic choice in their own right that Thai BL has refined over the years to work as leitmotifs (small repeated sound sequences) in the series that reiterate the themes.

Two great examples of sound cues came out last year even as their cinematography leaned more towards a cinematic style. The Trainee, a GMMTV show about a film production company, used computer error sounds as a comedic beat when characters' fucked up, while Kidnap had a pathetic dog whimper, which created more sympathetic characters, like injured puppies who needed love and patience to recover from their injuries.

There's an art to using these theatrical tools in productions. I was rewatching an episode of Little Bear recently and Mother Bear blew out a candle, which was indicated not by a blowing sound effect but a clarinet trill. So much more tender! These sorts of sonic tricks were used beautifully throughout silent films, opera, and symphonies in the West for years. It merely fell out of fashion outside of cartoons and some comedies.

But just because certain tastes or practices were deserted or designated for "low-brow" entertainment in one culture, doesn't mean that other cultures are somehow 'behind' or 'lesser' for their use of it. Both cultures are equally contemporary to one another. One is not more advanced just because it has a stronger economy or easier access to certain goods and technologies. Nor does the designation of 'low-brow' to some art mean that the 'low-brow' entertainment is actually less skillful or impactful. The viewer just might lack an appropriate angle to appreciate it from or there might easily be cultural biases at play, not just across different cultures but regarding social status and rules within a single culture (and bother are something we ought to be very sensitive about when dealing with queer media).

I want to look at one of my favorite aspects that comes out of Thai BLs preference towards theatricality. The performances, and even certain production elements, often burst with spontaneity, clumsiness, exuberance. It can infect an audience with joy as the shows demonstrate what we often call (from lack of clearer aesthetic terminology) "heart." Dismissively, plenty of fans refer to the 'heart' of Thai series as if its unintentional and unrelated to the elements of the series they see as inferior. Its the sweet taste that got them addicted to a guilty pleasure! The 'heart,' though, comes from the Thai creators prioritizing a view of human messiness over the technical precision preferred by a cinematic aesthetic.

Thai BL often has a similarity to live theater in this manner, as well as improvisation-based media. Again, these are not lesser forms of art. I bring up improv specifically because it's easy to believe that the lack of pre-planning and compositional directive ought to diminish it in the made-up hierarchy people have going in their heads. Yet, we have Mike Leigh, a British director of dramedies, and Christopher Guest, an American comedy director, both famed and critically celebrated for their humanist works founded in improvisation.

You won't find me arguing that all Thai BLs are successful or that one country's BLs are somehow better than another's. I just do my best to understand, explain, and make meaningful comparisons to appreciate the aesthetic goals I see shows' evoking. It's also fun to look into influences beyond my own cultural scope and love (and repost) when others' share them. What are specific East and South Asian media reference points that influence the style of the shows (lakorn, literary BL media, Thai traditional theater)? I'd be remiss not to mention, for example, that the theatrical traditions for Thai shows derive mainly from Asian traditions in cinema and theater, despite all my comparisons to Western history!

Then there's the question of local political, economic, and cultural issues and limits that the creators live alongside and must create within and/or against to some extent. I'll never know all the answers, but exploring the questions is so much more fun than disparaging shows for what they aren't and what they can't or don't aim to be.

But look, I personally have a preference for the style a lot of Thai BLs go for. It reminds me of the cartoons, musicals, DCOMs, and vintage tv I've loved watching for most of my life. I like the variant gender and sexuality representations they offer. I like the intricate economic-political commentary I see the writers working into the subtext. It's not going to resonate for everyone, not everyone will see what I see, and all that's okay. I've personally never been happier with the amount of series' that match my tastes.

[891movies]

Top 25 films (of the second 250 I watched for this project)

Around two years ago I posted a top 25 list of the first 250 films I watched for this project. Since I have now watched another 250 films and discovered many new favorites, the time has come for a second top 25!

Without further ado, I present them in chronological order (because if I actually had to rank them this list would never get out of the editing stage):

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938, dir. Michael Curtiz, William Keighley)

This movie is a storybook adventure come to life, charming, entertaining and beautiful to look at (I miss you, technicolor!). Errol Flynn has an unmatched energy as the titular character and Olivia de Havilland is the picture perfect leading lady, with the exact right mixture of grace and fire. This is may not be a particularly complex or groundbreaking film but it does what it does perfectly and taps into that childlike sense of wonder that few films manage so well.

A Matter of Life and Death (1946, dir. Emeric Pressburger, Michael Powell)

One of my most delightful discoveries since starting this project have been the films of Powell and Pressburger - I'm not sure what other directors could boast releasing three of the greatest films of all time in three consecutive years (those being A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes). This film mixes a deeply moving love story with a metaphysical court room drama to great success and this strange mixture is mirrored in the film's form, with some experimental but mostly conventional cinematography.

Ace in the Hole (1951, dir. Billy Wilder)

As grim and cynical as it is sharp, this movie plays out like a feverish nightmare. I was honestly shocked at how dark this movie got, considering the time and place in which it was made, but that is absolutely what the story needed and I'm glad Wilder got to tell it this way.

A Star Is Born (1954, dir. George Cukor)

Has there ever been another star to reach the heights of emotional intensity that Judy Garland did in her time? I was lucky enough to see this movie on the big screen and I can't imagine watching it at home, because Garland is so larger than life, I can't see how a smaller screen could contain her. That's not to take anything away from James Mason, who gives a tragic and intense performance for the ages.

Johnny Guitar (1954, dir. Nicholas Ray)

Joan Crawford in your butch black shirt save me! Save me, Joan Crawford in your butch black shirt!

Bigger Than Life (1956, dir. Nicholas Ray)

Surprise, it's another Nicholas Ray melodrama! Ray had this habit of creating highly emotional stories that hid some sharp social commentary, but the commentary is barely hidden this time and it is shockingly subversive. Mason gives another intense performance but here it tilts fully into unhinged territory and he is terrifying to watch. The ending feels a little slapped on but it also feels like the only way Ray could get away with everything that came before.

Mon Oncle (1958, dir. Jacques Tati)

This movie feels like a precursor to Playtime, one of my all-time favorite films (incredibly novel opinion, I know). The sets are meticulously designed and a delight to behold, and Tati's performance as Monsieur Hulot (the titular uncle) is charming as always. I especially adore the contrast between the traditional and modern Paris, as well as the unconventional sound mixing that refuses to privilege dialogue, leaning into cinema's strengths as a visual medium.

Jules and Jim (1962, dir. François Truffaut)

This is by far my most recent watch on this list and it's still kind of percolating in my head but I loved it when I watched it and my fondness for it has been growing daily. It has that charming, youthful irreverence that the French New Wave is so known for, as well as one of the most complex depictions of a female character I've seen in french cinema.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962, dir. Robert Aldrich)

Bette Davis is one of my all time favorite actresses and this is one of my all time favorite performances. She puts everything into this role and the rest of the film compliments her perfectly; it's funny and dark, tragic and absolutely unhinged. And Joan Crawford is good too, I guess.

Tokyo Olympiad (1965, dir. Kon Ichikawa)

This blew my mind when I first watched it, seeing what incredible feats documentary filmmakers were capable of so early on in the genre's history. It is also the perfect counterpoint to Riefenstahl's earlier documentaries about the Olympic games; where she emphasized nationalism and feats of strength, Tokyo Olympiad focuses on the humanity of it and the power this event has to bring us together. Probably my favorite section of the film focuses on an athlete who was the sole representative of his newly independent country and who did not qualify for the finals in his field (unfortunately I don't remember the country or the sport). But just the fact that he made it to the Olympics, that he got to represent his country on the world stage, is an incredible feat in and of itself, and the film recognizes this.

The Wild Bunch (1969, dir. Sam Peckinpah)

This movie is everything a western should be - exciting, violent, and deeply critical of the ugly history it is depicting. The characters are not good people but they are compelling and incredibly fun to watch.

Woodstock (1970, dir. Michael Wadleigh)

Another mindblowing documentary that pushes the ability of the medium to its limits. It captures a unique moment in time, a spirit of rebellion and hope for the future that unfortunately feels worlds away from our current cultural landscape. It is also an incredible display of the emotional power of music. I cried during Janis Joplin's performance and it felt impossible to match, but then it is immediately followed by Jimi Hendrix and I could feel my soul descend to a higher plane of existence. It is my life's goal to see this film in the theater.

In the Realm of the Senses (1976, dir. Nagisa Ōshima)

Everything is sex, except sex, which is love and beauty and death all intertwined and impossible to separate.

Atlantic City (1980, dir. Louis Malle)

Rarely has a setting felt so integral to a film. Everything from the story, to themes, to the characters revolves around and is subservient to the setting of a declining Atlantic City whose glory days are far behind it. It is also a microcosm of American society at large, at least as people were experiencing it in 1980 (although it's pretty relevant today, I would say).

Gallipoli (1981, dir. Peter Weir)

This is the movie that definitively convinced me that anti-war films are indeed possible to make, just not in Hollywood (Come and See had me thinking this, but Gallipoli proved to me that it wasn't a unique feat of just one film). We barely see the war in this movie but it is all about the incredible tragedy of it.

Koyaanisqatsi (1982, dir. Godfrey Reggio)

I was completely expecting this movie to put me to sleep and instead, it was one of the most viscerally intense and haunting viewing experiences of my life. It is hypnotic in the very best way and somehow captures the ennui of modern life without a single word being spoken.

Paris, Texas (1984, dir. Wim Wenders)

This film is an intoxicating mixture of tenderness and brutality, and a deeply moving depiction of our longing to reach out and connect to one another. This is the other film on the list I got to see in the theater and the cinematography was absolutely breathtaking on the big screen.

Trust (1990, dir. Hal Hartley)

This is such a delightfully strange film, almost but not quite set in our reality. The strangeness makes the gentleness of the love story all the more touching; this is one of those movies that makes me happy to be alive.

Safe (1995, dir. Todd Haynes)

I have been kind of obsessed with this movie since I saw it, so much so that it will actually be a focal point in my master's thesis. Everything in the film, from the cinematography to the soundtrack to, especially, Julianne Moore's performance, builds to this overwhelming sense of anxiety and dread, and Haynes' refusal to give an easy answer (or any answers at all) makes it all the more unsettling.

Scream (1996, dir. Wes Craven)

I do like scary movies, yes. I especially like movies that are scary, funny, and feature a bloody final girl and (more than) a touch of homoeroticism.

The Blair Witch Project (1999, dir. Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez)

Look at that, another scary movie! I am probably more susceptible to this movie's attempts at scares than most viewers, because I've only very recently started to build any kind of tolerance for horror, but it got me so good. The simplicity just makes it better; it may only do one thing but it does it very, very well.

Dancer in the Dark (2000, dir. Lars von Trier)

I'm always kind of hoping when I watch a new Lars von Trier movie that maybe I won't like this one, because I don't know what it says about me that I enjoy his films so much but I know that it can't be good. But this movie belongs just as much to Björk, who gives an incredible acting performance and an all-time great vocal performance. I was left a sobbing wreck; to this day, just humming 'The next to last song' to myself brings a tear to my eye.

Volver (2006, dir. Pedro Almodóvar)

Penélope Cruz is a revolution in this movie, my god. She brings the emotional sincerity that the film needs to keep its elaborate plot grounded. As always, I appreciate Almodóvar's clear love for strong and complicated women, as well as the often messy relationships between them.

Phantom Thread (2017, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)

I love a good twisted love story and it is beautifully told here. Form also compliments function to a tee; a story about an obsessive compulsion to create perfect art is mirrored in the absolutely meticulous cinematography and costuming. Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of a lifetime here and while I do miss seeing him in the theater, what a film to end on!

Roma (2018, dir. Alfonso Cuarón)

This is one of those movies where nothing happens, in that there isn't a traditional plot (events still take place, obviously), because it's about life, man. It's a type of film that needs a deft hand and a filmmaker with something to say, and Cuarón has both in spades. Funnily enough, this movie reminds me a lot of Paris, Texas; it has that same mix of tenderness and harshness that compliment each other.