#the reason i like lynch is because his approach to movies is Different so i don't feel like i'm being bombarded with information

[internetfungi]

the truth is that audiovisual media is not my preferred medium, and I'd much rather read or see a comic book than watch a movie or a series. im tired of pretending otherwise

[palmett-hoes]

Hi, I really loved your post with the monsters as Birds of Prey! Was wondering if you had any thoughts on the Foxes as Marvel or Mcu characters? I feel like I could see Dan as Carol Danvers and Andrew for sure is Jessica Jones, idk about the rest.

oh wow old post!!

haha unfortunately i’m not really a comics person so i don’t feel like i can really give the best analysis possible, but i have seen most of the mcu movies and bits and pieces of the netflix show so i’ll try my best. also im using dc characters too bc i want to

1. Dan: I think your instinct with Dan as Captain Marvel is spot-on (at least uhhh,, based on the movie lol sorry comics ppl). Her direct, forceful powers and fighting style are definitely reminiscent of dan’s no-nonsense leadership approach. similarly the themes of overcoming sexism and acceling in a male-dominated industry in the captain marvel movie is pretty much the same as dan’s story establishing herself as the first female exy captain (tho sports is way more valid than the military). plus there’s a lot of emphasis on love and friendship between women that dan is ALL about. also lashana lynch would be a god tier dan wilds fc. Dan could also def have that lawful good Okoye from Black Panther energy. Loyal, disciplined, no-nonsense leader. no powers except discipline. no hair. also danai gurira in 2012 with the dreads and the sword and the cape on TWD was definitely part of my middle school sexual awakening

2. Kevin: Aquaman. this is based pretty much exclusively on the fact that jason momoa is my #1 kevin fc and also that Pasifika kevin is phenomenal and mandatory, actually. otherwise i think he has a decent amount of stick-up-the-ass cyclops energy. or dick grayson nightwing energy but i don’t have any evidence for why. kinda looks like him tho

3. Andrew: andrew gets the most characters bc he’s my favorite. i think ur jessica jones instincts are absolutely correct, both in her storyline (i only watched the first season) and her powers. i’ve seen some powers au and the tendency seems to be giving andrew like,, psychic powers or the like, and i don’t really agree. andrew is a very direct character. he’s pragmatic, he confronts problems head on, and he doesn’t muck about in details. to me this really translates best into physical powers like super strength that help u big punch straight thru all ur problems. also i def think andrew would be not just a solo hero but a mercenary (or a detective) because he’s not altruistic enough to be a standard vigilante. he doesn’t care enough about other people to hang out on rooftops all night waiting for Crime to occur. there’s a price for that.  which brings us to the NEXT andrew hero: deadpool. maybe in personality more of a drugged andrew but the superpowered mercenary is really a perfect fit for andrew. also, healing powers have a decidedly tragic poetry to them on andrew. already he’s self-destructive, if he had a healing factor his concern for his own well-being would be so beyond rock bottom it’d be in the earth’s core. even worse when you remember that with a healing factor, as opposed to indestructibility, you still feel all the pain. which brings us to Wolverine and X-23, who have the same thematic points as deadpool but are much more of a personality match and they have knife hands, which i really think andrew would appreciate. ending that sadness train and onto another tho, andrew’s aesthetic and Vibes fit the Winter Soldier just SO well (just that movie tho, not really civil war or anything past that) and a reinterpretation of the captain america story using the twinyards would be incredibly interesting. and finally, one last hero that would work really well for andrew: rogue, only remove the angst around not being able to touch people, andrew would love that. one touch and their comatose? baller. don't fucking touch him.

4. Matt: Shazam. I didn’t see the shazam movie but my dad and brother did and they said it was very funny and all the trailors looked like it had a lot of fun himbo energy and i really think that fits. in terms of matching himbo disaster energy i think i’ve heard good things about comics hawkeye (not mcu). thor?

5. Aaron: Mr. Fantastic. now this might be a stretch but aaron is a character who uses a skin-deep veneer of anger to cover the fact that he’s actually quite pliant and bends to other people’s wills. and he’s a doctor or w/e. he could alse be like,, antman. he’s smart right? hank pym not paul rudd. katelyn can be wasp

6. Seth: Arm Fall Off Boy. no i will not elaborate.             ..... ugh fine, but i'm using my favorite piece of superhero media of all time: x-men evolution, the one where they're all teenagers in public high school. seth can be lance alvers/avalanche who’s a bit of a jerk and has a lot of issues with authority and has a rivalry with cyclops very reminiscent of seth with kevin, but still there’s the recurring theme that he’s lashing out because of low self-esteem and a bad situation and he’s a surprisingly sympathetic character who i’m very fond of. his power is earthquakes but i think the name makes that pretty self-explanatory

7. Allison: Iron Man. cocky, bitchy, and rich rich rich. sounds like allison to me. then to elevate it a level higher: emma frost, rich bitch extraordinaire. also if allison had telepathic powers she would be unstoppable. plus one more bitchy, morally-gray blonde (but chaotic this time): Harley Quinn

8. Nicky: Okay so I do wanna give a quick shout-out to Northstar, the first openly gay comicbook superhero, who’s a speedster which I’d actually say fits Nicky pretty well. However, if i had to choose a superhero to represent nicky in presence and powers it would have to be Jubilee from x-men (... from what i’ve heard lol. i’ve never actually consumed any of her Media hahaha anyway) she’s a joyful, energetic presence and her powers are setting off fireworks which i think is a good balance of nicky being a supportive cousin-parent AND a chaotic train wreck garbage trash man. also gonna throw in johnny storm for a cheap 'flaming' joke

9. Renee: Thunder/Blackbird from Black Lightning bc she’s a fufkin lesbian lol. (i don’t watch the show but i do follow nafessa williams’s tag). now the fr ones i’m gonna do together because to me they have the same Vibes so i chose them for the same reasons. Wonder Woman and Storm who to me have the same  reserved, impartial, regal energy. honestly ethereal and somewhat otherwordly, and quite literally goddesses. also op as hell.  black widow and her “red in my leger” looking for redemption story also fits thematically.

10. Neil: okay lazy answer first: the flash or quicksilver. get it? because they run fast? and neil run too? yea i like to think i've proven myself to be better than such a surface level interpretation but worth the mention ig. so for srs now, mystique and her shape changing powers would be an interesting interpretation of neil's identity issues, but i wanna push it a step further. nightcrawler would actually be possibly the MOST interesting hero to apply to neil 1. because powers still very movement go fast place to place 2. because of the thematic focus on neil's unusual looks and the lengths he goes to hide them, very much in line with the way nightcrawler will use a hologram-projector in order to look human, yet in both cases it's only a surface-level illusion, and 3. his parentage. here, mary would be mystique, which i also think works very well considering mary seemed to be the far more effective chameleon on the run than neil, and also fits with her place as a morally grey character, as mystique herself is often a villain or an antagonist, with her own agenda and shadowy motives. then nathan matches well with nightcrawler's father: azazel, a literal demon, and also where kurt gets his appearance. it's a shockingly coherent narrative between the three of them. then, to also give neil some powers that aren't contingent on his fucked up geneology and rather on his own merit and abilities, Black Canary and her sonic voice parallel the way that neil began to anchor his identity and take ownership over himself through his voice and his sick roasts

and 1 extra, wymack: batman, on account of his altruism, his dedication to second chances, and his many, many adopted children

---

anon, ik it's been a sec since you sent this, so i hope it gets back to you. i had a fun time with it and it prompted like,,, 7 different au s that i'll never write

[onisiondrama]

(Note: I’m not repeating stories he’s told before and just putting them in parenthesis. I have a lot more videos to go until I’m caught up so that would save me a lot of time. If he gives details I never heard from him before, I will type those.)

“I Figured Something Out” Sept 24, 2020 Speaks

- Says he likes to make videos pointing out his flaws because when he realizes he was doing something wrong, he likes to point it out and move on. You shouldn’t bottle things up. - Says when he started making these video he was angry and over time he winded down. - Begs his follower to look into the Regina / Adam thing. Says Regina pretended to be a transgender person named Adam. He says he was told this by a friend of someone he loves, by someone he loves, by a Hansen insider, and two other people who looked into it. They fabricated a person and a story. He says it’s gross. He says he doesn’t know exactly what was said because he doesn’t watch those videos. - Says he recently watched a beautiful, capable, smart women talk about cancel culture and drama. She’s a republican who doesn’t believe in the far right or left. Says most people go with the flow, but she’s an individual. He says he didn’t care there were things she said that he disagreed with because of the way she spoke. He says when he talks to people online, he has to remember you’re not that different. We all have feelings and people are less reasonable in your opinion if you don’t approach them reasonably. He says he is too harsh and mean in his videos, unlike the women. He understands you’re not supposed to sugarcoat the truth, but other people have feelings. - (People are after him because he hurt their feelings.) - Brings up Regina again. He says he doesn’t know what their problem is because he never talked to them. Says there’s sincere mental illness sprinkled around the internet and it’s proven if you put Regina and Adam side by side. He says he hasn’t watch the videos side by side, but he’s seen photos. He says he doesn’t know how this got past the filters and how people can be so negligent to the truth. He says that’s what happens when you let anyone on a show. People come on to troll or to project their issues. - He says people who watched him may have felt talked down to. He says he spoke like that because he felt like his audience turned on him before he had a chance to explain why it was all ridiculous. He felt it was unintelligent for people to assume it was the truth, but he was in a situation where he was threatened with divorce if he talked. He was stuck between being the bigger person and staying silent while he was building up frustration seeing what people were saying about him. - Says if the Regina and Adam thing is true, it’s the funniest disaster that ever occurred on social media. People were saying there’s all these victims and one of them turns out to be someone dressing up as a new person. It’s bad enough people can fake texts, but when you fake a whole person that’s another level of crazy. He says he almost feels blessed to be subjected to that level of comedy. He says it’s clinically insane for someone to do that with a straight face. He says he never even heard of Adam. - When his marriage was on the rocks because of cuddlegate, he told Billie he wanted to be alone. Billie tried to work it out with him. Says that’s evil step-mom, homewrecker stuff. [I’m pretty sure he’s talking about when he made the fake divorce video and she contacted him.] Says he had the opportunity to run away and abandon his family. He chose to stay because he doesn’t want to be that dad that choses his lustful side over his heart. He broke down crying at one point because he almost let down his family and he almost lost them. He didn’t talk to Billie for a few months after cuddlegate until Kai was like “uwu”. He says he told Kai it was a bad idea and it ended horribly. Says he’s done better than his dad and numerous other dads. - Says he doesn’t speak to people in his life as respectfully as he should. - Anyone in his shoes would be just as bitter and angry as he was. Some people wouldn’t even be alive. He lashed out because he didn’t get a fair chance. People won’t do a charity stream with him. - Once he told his full side in videos, people didn’t want to interview him anymore because he didn’t seem crazy anymore. - Says he was part of the mob against Chris Brown. He said he’s had people scream in his face and he didn’t do anything illegal to them. He called the cops on them. - (Patreon ban, he didn’t dox on purpose) - He says he wants to get rid of boob squeeze because it’s cringey to him. [thank god!]

“My Social Life- Before And After COVID” Sept 25, 2020, Speaks

- (Chris Hansen covid cure) - Says before COVID he stopped going out in public because people were taking picture of his children and posting them to the internet. An employee at Lowes and at Dairy Queen took photos of his children. He’s protective of them. A man [Hansen] showed up to his house when his kids were home. - He was thankful when COVID hit because people would stay away from him. He’s happy he has to wear a mask. He was wearing a different disguise in public before the masks. - (Kai threatened divorce if he spoke) - Says people’s emotions and mental illness cloud their memories. He conquered that when he was 17. A girl dumped him and he told her she was a monster. This was before people would seek clout so it was just between them. He says he supports her breaking up with him because they weren’t meant to be. - Seeing how crazy Seattle and society has gotten, he doesn’t want to be apart of it.  - He was socially lynched without going to court. (Mike went to court) - COVID gave him on excuse to avoid everyone and family members. He says COVID is horrible and people have died, but for him it came at an interesting time. He compares it to when a kid bullied him really hard in elementary school and died in a sledding accident. Says some dude or chick in a truck hit the kid. He says another time a guy was bullying him hard and that guy died in a motorcycle accident. He gave his helmet to his girlfriend. He died a hero. He gave up his life for someone. He was handsome and had his life ahead of him. - Says according to his mother, his father got a women killed by not giving her a helmet. He kept it for himself. His father also allegedly slept with his cousin. His dad tried to sue him and failed. Three of his family member accused his father of being a predator. - A reporter interviewed his father and his father acted like a hero.  - His mom is the one who left his dad. He says she didn’t have to fight for custody so there’s no motivation for her to lie. - (beat up his dad story) - Criminal experts will agree with him to follow the money in cases because money is the root of all evil. Like a news station that will make more money by making a monster instead of telling a true story. It is not profitable to tell both sides. - People like black and white stores, not stories where both people make mistakes. - He love isolation. He was covered in his father’s blood when he went to juvie. His white shirt was brown with dry blood. He was happy to be there because he was away from people and life was simpler. Everybody in there was flawed, which is better than being with his hypocrite god-loving father. Typical Seventh Day Adventist garbage. Greg says he was one as well. When he was 13 he prayed and told god he wanted nothing to do with him. Many amazing things happened to him after that. - Says you have a lot of drifters who came and destroyed someone consistent in you life, then they left. He was that consistent person. He was making hundreds of videos and entertaining thousands of people per video. Now he’s down to 900 to 3,000 views per video. They came, they destroyed, they left. They destroyed someone you connected with, had a real bond with. A lot of you cheered them on as they did this and then they left. Now you’re left with the same person, but he’s more broken. He believed in good people before, but now that he was dragged down into dirt, he has dirt in his eyes. He can’t see the sun or trees. He can just see dark and sadness. He still feels your spit on his face from when you millions of people beat him senseless socially. - He says he saw a legitimate news source says there was an FBI investigation about him. Says the FBI never contacted him. - Leafy recently suggested he should become an actor. He compares it to Kevin Spacey. Says it would be sad to lose a netflix show or a movie deal because of people saying things about you. He says imagine people who were going to be on that show with you stop talking to you because they don’t want to be dragged down with you. He’s glad he wasn’t that big when he fell because it would have hurt more. Now he gets to be a no one who knows who he really is when most people live in an alternate reality. - When he lost BillyTheFridge as a friend, he didn’t lose anything because Billy was a fake friend. Billy wanted to be a white knight. Joe and Anastasia were great friends and wanted to still talk to him. Billy later on realized James wasn’t as evil as he thought and invited him to lunch with them. Says he (James) backed out and decided to stop talking to all of them. He says it’s sad he lost Joe and Anastasia as friends, but he didn’t want to drag them into the drama and make their lives more miserable. Having friends was a burden and he didn’t want them to hurt. - (Regina / Adam) Dobs is barking. - He feels like this whole thing is a grand opportunity to look at things the way they are. He doesn’t trust anyone anymore and he doesn’t believe in friendships anymore. - He swears on his life he’s more honest than Sarah, Billie, and Shiloh.

[knives-out20]

Weird. - Erik Lehnsherr x Male!OC

Fandom: X-Men 

Pairing: Karmel Rosenstein (OC) x Erik Lehnsherr

Warnings: Internalized homophobia, gay shit, angsty backstories, 

Notes: So...I’m not back in the marvel fandom, you couldn’t pay me to come back. It’s just...I kinda started watching the X-Men movies, and after spiraling for Lt. Archie Hicox, I’ve caught myself slipping for Erik. So yesterday I made an oc, Karmel. Let me tell you about him: 

About OC: Karmel Rosenstein is an American-Jewish mutant. He’s a -deeply- closeted bisexual, who, as you may have already guessed, has a crush on Erik. He’s a year younger than Erik, and his faceclaim, as you can see, is Brad Pitt as Detective David Mills in Se7en (1995). He’s rich like Charles, and was automatic heir to his family���s, well, EVERYTHING after his parents got pelted to death by rocks for simply being Jewish. He’s tried killing himself twice, both at the hands of his powers. His powers are classified as vine powers, because he can summon/create+control vines. He can shoot them out of his hands (or really any part of his body) and control where they go, what they do, what’s on them (thorns, flowers, nothing, leaves, etc), along with make them appear from the ground. His hero name is ‘Caramel Climber’. More to come from these two. But for now; enjoy.

Karmel lay flat on the bed of his room in the X-Mansion, a hand raised so that he could control his vines. He sighed softly, stretching his hand all the way up as his vines formed a heart shape above him.

”This isn’t right,” Karmel thought to himself, for around the millionth time in his life.”You’re a man, so is he. This isn’t right, this isn’t normal. It’s weird. You’ve got other things to worry about, anyway. Stop pretending” he groaned.”Some phase this is. It’s lasted since I was thirteen” Karmel mumbled, squeezing his eyes shut.”Charlie thinks my thoughts give him headaches, my thoughts give myself fucking migraines.”

He wasn’t very content with the fact that when he opened his eyes, his vines had written ‘ERIK’ inside the heart, along with an arrow going through it. Karmel scowled, waving an arm to make the vines disperse away.”Fucking faggot” he thought, rubbing the bridge of his nose.”What I feel isn’t real...it can’t be. Boys can’t like boys, Rosenstein. You’re sick in the fucking head, what is wrong with you?” Karmel sat up, picking up a bottle of water and throwing it across the room, the bottle just about missing Erik, who stood in the doorway. 

Erik flinched away, watching the bottle hit the floor as he closed the door behind himself.”Some welcome that is.”

“Erik...I didn’t see you. I’m sorry” Karmel apologized.”Did it hurt you at all? A small graze, maybe?”

“No, the wall took all of the damage. Bad timing?”

“No, no, it’s just...midnight thoughts.”

“It’s 8:30 in the evening.”

“Night time thoughts, then. What are you, the time police?”

Erik held back a chuckle, approaching Karmel on the bed. He watched as Karmel’s vines slowly seeped away, disappearing behind Karmel’s back.”Something bothering you?”

“I mean, spending my early thirties to use my weird powers to stop a nuclear war and for some reason co-exist with the very same species that killed my parents based on their religion is...not how I saw myself spending this week” Karmel explained.”My powers are one of the main things I spent my whole life repressing. And now I need to use it to stop a third world war? Erik, man, I just...damn.” Is all he could muster up. 

“You’re lucky you had the option to not use your powers most your life” Erik pointed out, looking away.”But, trauma isn’t a competition, now, is it? I’m just surprised that I’m still here.”

“I’m glad you’re still here. The group would be so boring if you had left that night...you think outside the box, you have more balls than anyone in this group. I’m glad you stayed” Karmel explained, fixing his tie.”I fear you’re the only one in this group who can...handle me, I’d say. Who understands me the most, and what I’ve gone through. You’ve gone through more, no doubt, but...I feel you know what I mean” he smiled for a moment. 

Erik nodded.”Indeed I do. A bunch of rocks compared to a gunshot...”

“Aching, twitching bodies compared to a limp one” Karmel muttered.”Was watching it happen worth being taken under my uncle’s care? Being the automatic heir to my family’s wealth, when I was older than you were, then? I remember ordering that every rock, no matter the size, to be removed from every square inch of the property...couldn’t even stand the word” he chattered on, hand balling into a fist. 

Erik stayed silent. Always one to listen. 

Karmel waved a hand dismissively, a vine slithering to fetch the water bottle.”What brings you to me, anyway?”

Erik shrugged.”Fresh breath of Jew never hurt me.”

Karmel chuckled, heart beat picking up the pace.”Glad that my religion could be of service” he joked, all previous thoughts against his feelings for Erik leaving his head.

It couldn’t be that bad, right? Evolving romantic feelings is natural, it’s human nature. We can’t control the gender of who we fall for.

”I feel torn with Charles’ whole idea. Co-exist with the same species who pelted my parents with rocks for their religion. Co-exist with the same species who lynch and arson other peoples of their species for simply being attracted to the same gender. Co-exist with the same species who destroy what they don’t understand...it’s kinda a load of nonsense.” Karmel explained.”He can’t possibly pretend that they’re all like Moira...but I guess that means I can’t act as if they’re all like the ones who destroyed my parents- augh, I hate it here” he covered his hands with his face, lying back down and closing his eyes.”Competent thought is a nuisance.”

Erik sat down by Karmel, careful not to disturb the serenity of the rest of the bed.”You certainly have a lot on your mind, hmm?”

“Me talking is like a faucet I forget to turn off. I’ve never had anybody listen to me that often, so once someone shows the smallest sign of wanting to listen, I go on for as long as I can...I’m sorry.”

“Don’t apologize. I’m sure we know more than anyone how it feels to bottle things up, yea?”.

“...Yea.”

Erik pat his knee, giving Karmel a forcefully-short-lived, ecstatic feeling.”What say I only stayed because I knew you’d go crazy being the only one with our alike morals on this team?”

“I’d say you’re only saying that to try ‘n’ make me feel better.”

Erik raised his eyebrows.”And?”

Karmel’s lips twitched awkwardly as he opened his eyes again.”I’d say it’s working.”

“Perfection” Erik winked playfully. 

Karmel gulped, heart set aflame.”Whatever. What do you say we even do about this? Our differing views to Charlie’s? Stick around, see if it does us any good? If it- If it’s worth it?”

“I’d say so, yes.”

“You’re both men,” Karmel thought again, “control yourself, it’s weird.” He averted his gaze.”Some names Raven gave us, yea? Mag-neet-o and Caramel Climber” Karmel scoffed.”Magnet-o would make more sense. Because..magnet. Not mag-neet, it’s simple.”

“You act like your name is any better, Caramel Climber” Erik sassed.

“I was just getting to that. It sounds like I literally climb caramel- which I don’t! It’s just ‘cause of my weird hair colour, and- and how my name sounds like caramel. And then vines are classified as climber plants, so there’s that” Karmen explained, draping an arm over his eyes. 

“At least it’s pronounced correctly” Erik rolled his eyes, adjusting the neck of his turtleneck.”Professor X makes the most sense. Didn’t you say Charles was actually going to become one?”

Karmel smiled softly at the fact that Erik remembered something he said.”Yea.  He’s gonna become a professor, his last name starts with X...We got stuck with the short straws, huh?”

“I guess so” Erik agreed, standing back up and turning to face Karmel.

Karmel gazed up at Erik, a soft smile on his lips. He was unaware of his vines growing from behind him and forming a heart shape behind him, him being in the center. 

Erik noticed, arching a brow.”Uhm...” He vaguely gestured for Karmel to turn around.

Karmel did so, eyes going wide and waving his hand, the vines quickly shrinking away.”That’s...That was weird, my bad.”

“Quite...” Erik squinted.”You’re yet to take complete control over your vines?”

“Afraid so. They’re semi-sentient sometimes, it- it’s weird” Karmel shrugged, sitting up. He put one hand flat on his knee, the other over his other thigh. Karmel glanced up at Erik, then down, noticing how the toes of their shoes were just about grazing each other. He pursed his lips, turning away.

“I know how you feel about me.”

“I have no idea what you mean-- what?” Karmel asked, head snapping in Erik’s direction.

Erik sighed silently.”I know how you feel about me, Karmel. As if that vine-heart you did wasn’t obvious enough- you’re not very good at hiding how you feel, you know” he told, crossing his arms.

“I- I...” Karmel stuttered, searching for something to say.”I don’t know what you’re talking about, Erik. We’re friends, of course you know how I feel about you. We’re just two dudes, two guys, who feel for each other in a way that friends should. Anything otherwise is weird” he coughed, tugging the collar of his button-up.

Erik rubbed the bridge of his nose.”It’s just the two of us, Karmel. No need to pretend...Please.”

Karmel defensively crossed his arms, huffing. He looked into Erik’s eyes, and saw nothing but complete, utter honestly. Karmel groaned in defeat, “okay.”

“Finally.”

“I’ve denied and bottled up any feelings I ever had towards any man in my life that wasn’t platonic for practically my entire life, especially you. I thought of it as...Weird. Not right. Not normal, y’know? Because, to me, I feel it isn’t normal. It’s inhumane- which is funny for me to say, because I’m a literal mutant” Karmel explained, slowly unfolding his arms.”Falling for you, Erik, was completely unintentional. Yet...it was on-sight. And I tried getting closer, I’m sure you’re well aware,” he gestured a hand up at Erik, who nodded.

“Well aware.”

“Exactly. I just...it’s weird, weirder than my powers. I’ve thought about you, me, and us, Erik. More than I ever have for any other man. I didn’t really let myself repress my thoughts about you like I usually do, it’s strange. But...I guess since you know, you deserve to know. I’m in love with you, Erik. As much as I don’t want to, as much as I’ve tried falling out of love with you, I’m deeper in love with you than ever before. Do with this information, uh, what you wish, I guess. Whatever the statement is.”

“Do with this information what you will” Erik corrected, a hand on his hip. He sat beside Karmel, who shifted away.”I won’t hold this information against you, first and foremost” Erik stated.”I’d much rather you indulge in these feelings, and I accept them with open arms, because it appears I’m better at hiding my romantic interests in other people than you are.”

“Huh-?”

“You heard me” Erik raised his eyebrows, fingers brushing over Karmel’s.

“You...” Karmel furrowed his eyebrows, a vine emerging to point at Erik.”You feel the same way-? About me?”

“Strangely so. Possibly as unintentional as your feelings were, but they came to me slower. It’s....weird, like you said” Erik nodded.”How about we keep this,” he gestured between Karmel and himself, “on the down-low for now? Or, as long as you want, I’m okay with however long that may be. We’ll work our way though this, and see how it goes. Sound good?”

Karmel maintained eye contact with Erik, blinking as he processed the weight of it all.”Uh- yea, sure. That’d be...cool.”

“Wonderful” Erik cracked a quick smile, patting Karmel’s cheek before standing back up.”We have a supposedly big day ahead of us tomorrow. Get some rest, Karmel. I’ll see you in the morning?”

Karmel nodded.”I’ll see you in the morning. Goodnight.”

Erik chuckled as he opened the door.”Goodnight” he replied, closing the door behind himself.

Karmel’s jaw dropped, replaying the recent scene over and over in his head.”Huh...” he breathed, cheeks filled with colour.”Weird.”

[invisibleicewands]

Michael Sheen (old) interview

He’s played the prime minister and the messiah – now Michael Sheen is plumbing the psyche of the original man in black. Caroline McGinn asks him about the dark side.                                                                                  

It’s been a big year for Michael Sheen. A lifechanger, in fact. The   42-year-old actor is widely admired for his uncanny ability to play   real-life characters: a Bambi-ish Tony Blair in a trilogy of films that   included ‘The Queen’; David Frost for Peter Morgan’s play-turned-movie   ‘Frost/Nixon’; and most recently, a demon-ridden Brian Clough in ‘The   Damned United’. But no previous role has come close to the Christ-like   leader Sheen played in ‘The Passion’ in his South Wales home town this   Easter: an epic 72-hour piece of community theatre which ended in Sheen being crucified on a local roundabout.

‘The Passion’, a local take on the Gospel commissioned by the storming new National Theatre of Wales, was more than just a play. It was a collective story that Sheen probably couldn’t have told anywhere but in Port Talbot, a town divided by the roaring M4 and dominated by a giant steelworks that was once the largest employer in Wales; a place where churchgoing and storytelling are still alive. It’s also his parents’ home. Sheen was so moved that talking about it makes him choke up. ‘I did this seven-mile procession with the cross,’ he recalls, wiping his eyes with the back of his hand. ‘It was boiling hot. There were 12,000-15,000 people. And I was seeing these bare-chested tattooed blokes standing outside pubs with pints, with kids, with tears in their eyes going, “Go on, Michael, you can do it!” It’s quite rare to be in the middle of an experience knowing it is probably the most meaningful one I will ever have in my life. Something in me relaxed after that, I think. I could say, “If I died tomorrow, I did that.”’

Over a glass of red wine in the bar at the Young Vic, where he is about to play Hamlet, Sheen does seem completely relaxed: eager, open and very Welsh, with his squiggle of dark brown hair and his neat, expressive hands. He has a shapeshifter’s face: mobile, not memorable, too blurry and mercurial for a romantic lead. And it is a pleasure to hear his real voice: un-damned by Clough’s nasal, northern scorn or Blair’s prim inflections, it is a gloriously unstoppable lilting flow which seems, to my English ears, to come straight from the Valleys.

Sheen currently lives in LA to be close to his 12-year-old daughter with ex-partner Kate Beckinsale. He is an unlikely denizen of La La Land, with his bike helmet, his puppyish friendliness and his lack of pretensions. His spectacular return to his roots at Easter has, he says, redefined who he thinks he is, and what he wants to do with his work: something which he expresses in probably the longest sentence I’ve ever heard anyone deliver. ‘“The Passion” did for me what I hoped it could do for everyone in the town, potentially, which is to experience your life and your home in a different way, because I think there is a tendency – and I have it, and I notice other people have it too, probably everyone has it but certainly people who come from quite challenged areas – there’s a sense that your life is of no interest, that your story is mundane and there is no, for want of a better word, numinosity, no transcendence, and so to be able to tell a story about the biggest things there can probably be, a version of the “greatest story ever told” in the town that is seen to be the least likely town for that to happen in, then the people in that town, every time they go around that roundabout, which is many times, can go, “Not only is that where I get fish and chips, it’s also where the crucifixion happened,” and the everyday becomes transcendent – to something that is miraculous.’

Thanks to Sheen’s great-grandfather, street preaching runs in the family. But the starry-eyed idealism behind doing a passion play in Port Talbot, to reach thousands of people who would never set foot in a theatre, might easily have backfired. It was an unglamorous risk for a local bloke-turned-Hollywood big shot to take. You can’t imagine the area’s other famous filmmaking sons, ultra-cool customer Antony Hopkins or hard-living Richard Burton, pulling it off – though Burton did enjoy making a splash on the local beach with Liz Taylor and his private helicopter. ‘The Passion’ was supposed to shine a light on the miracle workers who do what Sheen calls the ‘unseemly’ work of care: for the old, the sick, the battered wives and the young offenders. For it to work, its makers had to gain the trust of the town.

‘After the Last Supper, when the Manics played, I was put on trial on the back of a truck and the crowd took over,’ he says. ‘It was at that moment I realised they understood it was their story. It was frightening and exhilarating. We didn’t know what was going to happen. Along the procession route people put photos of things they’d lost. Then, on the cross, I did a litany. Of things I remembered, or that I’d gathered from people, of people and places that don’t exist any more.’ It was Sheen’s epic personal connection to South Wales, where his dad once worked as a Jack Nicholson impersonator, and where his great-grandfather got rich when God told him to buy a tin mine. Sheen’s codirector Bill Mitchell and writer Owen Sheers spent a year getting stories from locals, and fed them into the piece. ‘I was just a participant: we all were,’ he says. ‘My mum and dad said a woman came to their house and told them I’d called her mother’s name when I was on the cross, and it had changed something for her. The need that drama first came from was community, witness, celebration and catharsis. We were trying to find a way for that to happen on a large scale.’

The Port Talbot ‘Passion’ has already gone down in theatre history. So where do you go after scaling the twin messianic peaks of Blair and Christ? Down into the doubt-ridden depths of Hamlet, naturally, the biggest role that a young (or young-ish in this case) actor can play. Judging by Sheen’s wordflow, those famous soliloquies won’t be a problem. After all, the actor made his name on stage: he won his first professional role at the Globe opposite Vanessa Redgrave in 1991 before he had graduated from Rada.

His CV is full of monster roles: Caligula, Peer Gynt, Amadeus (playing  Mozart was his break into Broadway in 1999). Clough, and even Blair and  Frost, creep into that list – though he’s obviously bored of talking  about the factional film roles that made him famous: ‘I’ve done  relatively few characters based on real people,’ he protests, just a  little bit too much. ‘I’ve been working on stage now for more years than  I care to mention.’

‘Project Hamlet’ has been on the cards for a while, but Sheen was waiting ‘for the right director and the right theatre’. Unlike recent celebrity Hamlets David Tennant and Jude Law, he didn’t want to do conventional West End Shakespeare, hence the Young Vic, with its younger, mixed audience and its imaginative approach, which includes – mysteriously – reconfiguring the playing space so that ‘Hamlet’ audiences must arrive 30 minutes early to take a ‘different route’ in. Sheen’s director of choice is Ian Rickson, the ex-Royal Court boss who has helped actors achieve career-defining roles (Kristin Scott-Thomas in ‘The Seagull’; Mark Rylance in ‘Jerusalem’). Hamlet tends to demand something very personal from actors: one reason why so many of them crack up over it, though Sheen seems remarkably unfurrowed by the prospect. ‘It is,’ he says, ‘good not to have to worry about people saying, “He doesn’t sound like Hamlet.” It’s me: I’m not doing a voice or playing a character, so to speak. It’ll sound like me and look like me, a bit of Welsh mixed with a bit of posh.’

Sheen sees ‘Hamlet’ as ‘like a portal. Or a living organism in some way. Other Shakespeare plays don’t have that quality of seeming to change. “Hamlet” works on you and sucks up everything you have. It’s a bit like looking into the abyss. What “Hamlet” makes everyone confront are all the things that are most frightening: irrationality, betrayal, madness and abandonment. It is very, very dark, and it dances along through that darkness.’

Sheen’s prince promises to be darker than most. Not just a mad Hamlet, but maybe even a bad Hamlet. ‘Me and Ian have taken a completely different approach,’ he explains. ‘The most interesting way to approach it is not to trust anything that Hamlet says, to assume that he’s an unreliable narrator. And once you do that, you realise how many assumptions there are about the play.’ Sheen cites Philip K Dick, David Lynch and Edgar Allan Poe as influences. The production will be set in a world ‘that feels as if we’re in some sort of institution’. Madness will be the keynote: ‘I discovered when working on it,’ says Sheen, ‘that it’s the first time anyone used the phrase “the mind’s eye”.’ Horatio says, “A mote it is, to trouble the mind’s eye.” Meaning a piece of grit. It sums up what I think the play is. It’s a bit of grit in the mind’s eye of the Western world. We’ve tried to expel it, by smoothing out its inconsistencies and by stopping it from being irritating. That’s a way to neutralise it and make it safer. But actually it’s the most dangerous of plays.’

Rickson and Sheen have found unorthodox inspiration in anti-psychiatrist RD Laing and G Wilson Knight, the twentieth century scholar who wrote an off-beam but brilliant essay on Hamlet, the ‘ambassador of death’ in the land of the living. ‘Laing said that if you take mad people on their own terms then maybe they’re just talking in a sort of heightened language about their lived experience,’ says Sheen. ‘And our take on “Hamlet” definitely questions the boundaries of what you would consider madness to be.’

So where do you go as an actor, after the heights of being crucified, and the depths of Hamlet’s psyche? ‘The answer to that is that I just don’t know,’ says Sheen. There are a couple of projects: Sheen says he was ‘roped in’ on a set visit to a new untitled film by cinema’s man of mystery, Terrence Malick, starring Sheen’s girlfriend and ‘Midnight in Paris’ co-star Rachel McAdams. And there’s also Wales-set thriller ‘Resistance’, out this month. But he has his heart set on directing a film about Edgar Allan Poe. ‘He was an extraordinary character. Very dark.’ The legacy of this life-changing year is a sharper, stronger passion for a live Welsh tradition: storytelling. ‘I just don’t know where you go after “The Passion” and “Hamlet”,’ says Sheen ‘But I do know that I want to tell stories that are powerful, that can reach people and equate to Greek theatre now. People still do need that. They respond to it. But you have to take risks to find them.’

(x)

[uzuuzuking]

so this started out as just a general post about why i like cinderella adaptations, but slowly spiraled into a ranking/review of all the cinderella adaptations i’ve seen in my short, young life. so strap in for possibly the longest post i’ve ever made on this blog. (look, i never know how much i have to say about something until i really get going lmao)

idk why i like cinderella adaptations/remakes/spinoffs so much? most of them are garbage (especially the ones within the last 10 years don’t @ me) but fuck it i like this brand of garbage. it’s fun to watch these movies and rework the bad plotlines and dialogue in my head as i go along.

i guess i like the source material and some of the aspects of all the different adaptations, but honestly i just like re-imagining them because there’s only so much cringey script-written-for-teens-but-clearly-written-by-40-year-old-adults-who-have-no-idea-how-teens-or-even-people-for-that-matter-actually-talk-and-interact i can take in one excruciating sitting.

anyway here’s my personal ranking of all the cinderella adaptations i’ve seen that no one asked for. (not including stage productions because i haven’t seen any and have no opinion of them. also not including into the woods because that’s not just cinderella, but a spectacular amalgamation of fairytale mishap and shenanigan.) and reviews because apparently i had more to say than i originally thought when i first started constructing this list:

cinderella (1997) - the absolute best cinderella adaptation of all time, hands down, this is non-negotiable. this movie has it all: an excellent and diverse cast, gorgeous costume design, beautiful sets, some of the most dazzling dance numbers i ever witnessed when i first watched it at the wee age of 4, and a positive, progressive message that was accurate for its time yet also so ahead of its time. i cannot praise this version of cinderella enough, it is my all time favorite and one of my top 3 feel-good movies. if you watched it today, the effects might not be as magical compared to what we have now, but keep in mind it was released in 1997. anyway, the cast is truly amazing and so effortlessly inclusive (and honestly the fact that the prince was asian with a black mother and white father and they literally never addressed it was such a power move). i could go on about this movie forever (i’ll probably make a whole post dedicated to it in the future) and what it meant to me and many others as young, impressionable poc. in conclusion, this movie set an exceedingly high standard for me and destroyed the chances of any other cinderella adaptation even hoping to live up to that. i love it! so! much!

ever after: a cinderella story (1998) - tbh i never saw this until i was in college but i immediately fell in love. i love the flow of the story as a whole - i never felt like anything was missing. i love the costumes and i especially love how danielle and henry’s relationship progressed throughout the film. slow-burn comes to mind when i watch their interactions and we all love a sweet, sweet slow-burn. it’s romance babes! it’s Dramatic in a few scenes and all i can say is that it really works because drew barrymore’s performance is exceptional, fantastic, engaging, more adjectives to describe how enthralled by her i was. above all, her character is compassionate - she uses her voice to speak in support for those who are suppressed by the flawed government systems and law enforcers, and influences the prince to use his status and power to better his people who lack the privileges of the nobility. she’s such a strong female lead (emotionally and physically - she literally fireman carries her love interest, who is taller than her and definitely exceeds her own bodyweight) and truly the mvp of this adaptation. watch it. watch it for Her.

enchanted (2007) - amy adams and idina menzel - ‘nuff said. okay but for real this one is so unique with its transition from classic d*sney 2D animation style to the real three-dimensional world and i adore it to the ends of the earth. the music? slaps! the story? slaps! the development of the main character? slaps!! she’s so princess-y and d*sney cartoon-y and struggles in the real world, but she adapts at a good pace and i love that she learns to be realistic while also keeping hope and love close to her heart. also her mother figure / daughter figure bond with morgan is so so precious. the only constructive criticism i have for this movie is the fact that we were robbed of idina menzel singing!!! did they know all along she was destined to play the frozen queen years in the future and decided against her singing in this one?? is that it? ridiculous. it’s been over a decade and i’m still seething over this. other than that this movie is *chef’s kiss*

ella enchanted (2004) - anne hathaway’s back must still be hurting from carrying this film. (no shade to the other cast members, they’re good, but anne is a queen and i forever love her.) this is another childhood favorite of mine. the story itself is a refreshing take - hats off to gail carson levine for the source material! i’ve talked about the differences between the movie and book before in the midst of my reread of the book a few months ago, but i don’t remember how much i focused on the movie. it’s so different from the book that it might as well be its own thing. on its own, the movie is pretty decent! again, mostly because of anne. it’s funny, it’s sad (especially that scene towards the beginning between ella and areida, i’m in stupid tears every time), and it gets weird but it’s a fun time. the chemistry between char and ella is so zesty i can feel it through the screen, i swoon over both of them. tbh i probably wouldn’t like this movie so much if not for the fact that anne hathaway is truly talented and i spend most of my time watching it just looking at her. 

cinderella 3: a twist in time (2007) - i genuinely enjoyed and appreciated how the characters were written in this one. they all had clear motives and became much more dynamic through their lines and actions (drizella is arguably the most static character here but she still amuses me so it’s fine i guess). cinderella has more agency since the stakes are higher. prince charming actually has a gotdamn personality and has some of the funniest scenes and dialogue. good for him. i was kind of sad that anastasia’s story with the sweet baker boy was thanos snapped by the stepmother, but she and baker boy get a cute credits illustration together so it’s still canon! maybe i’m more biased on this one because i grew up rewatching it A Lot, but i definitely prefer it to the first and second movies.

cinderella (2000) - this one is kind of weird but i like it? the film has a really interesting vibe that i’m still trying to figure out how to describe even after seeing it like 5 times. wikipedia refers to the aesthetic style as “the glamour of the 1950s” which just might be as close as we can get. it follows the general guidelines of the cinderella plot, but the main differences were: zezolla (cinderella) was already helping with the chores before her father remarried, claudette (stepmother) was actively trying to murder zezolla’s father during their marriage, the stepsisters were much more violent and crass (they hunted zezolla’s beloved farm animals for sport and talked about getting “a man in [their] bed”), zezolla’s father was manipulated by everything claudette did and said and treated his own daughter poorly as a result, and prince valiant is honestly kind of a douchebag but seems willing to improve himself after meeting zezolla (basically his vibes are iffy but he’s willing to learn). this whole movie is pretty niche and i have yet to interact with someone who’s also seen it. and the only reason i’ve seen it so many times is because i just like listening to how the dialogue is delivered. (except for prince valiant’s random song at the ball, i kind of hated that and i skip through it every time lol).

a cinderella story (2004) - the classic hilary duff version. very cliche early 2000s high school romance, but it works for the cinderella narrative. not particularly diverse. a classic nonetheless. in my mind this is the pinnacle of the “modern cinderella movie” type. this is one of the most iconic movies for us zillennials and i’d like to think it’s known well enough for me to not go into a lot of detail about it. basically it was fresh and new for its time, had plenty of memorable scenes, and did i mention hilary duff? the film kind of plays into the “not like other girls” trope - as do a couple of the movies i listed above - but i’m just going to acknowledge that the early 2000s were Wack and simply move on. all in all, i like this movie for the nostalgia, iconic scenes, and hilary duff. also jennifer coolidge is pretty funny as the stepmother.

another cinderella story (2008) - again, an early 2000s classic, but this time with selena gomez. i liked the dancing in this one. i like selena’s quiet, somewhat timid characterization of her character, mary. and jane lynch in the stepmother role is perfection. she’s so fun to watch and is always hilarious. the story is nothing remarkable, but it’s okay and i liked it as a kid. after the hilary duff version, this one still managed to feel fresh because, though it was similar in its modern era approach, it focused more on the performing arts and dance. “cinderella” is an aspiring dancer, rather than the 2004 aspiring scholar. the “prince” is a famous popstar, not a football player. the stepmother is an outdated popstar desperate to stay Hip and Relevant with the kids, not a cranky botox lady. honestly i just love watching this one for the dancing, mary’s genuine and innocent love for the “prince”, and literally everything that comes out of jane lynch’s mouth. that woman is a dialogue gold mine.

a cinderella story: once upon a song (2011) - lucy hale is good. missi pyle is good. they play their roles and lines that they’re given fairly well. over all, it’s entertaining. lucy, of course, has them Pipes and i do like the songs in this movie. the only major downside for me was the “token best friend of color” trope. lucy’s best friend is an asian girl who’s good at sports and is there for one liners and support. the prince charming character’s best friend is a black guy who he only knew for probably a month at the most. he can beatbox, sing, and dj. basically he’s also just there as support. they really don’t do much for the plot but they’re there for diversity and whatnot. this movie is.. fine.

cinderella (1950) - the only reason this ranks so low for me is because i watched it a lot as a child when it was on vhs and it always felt like a fever dream to me. i was just really young and didn’t feel invested in any of the characters. it is a classic, though, and i would watch it again and be able to enjoy it.

cinderella 2: dreams come true (2002) - i liked cinderella’s and anastasia’s stories from this one. jaq’s was meh. it was fine.

dj cinderella or cinderella pop (2019) - netflix knows i like cinderella adaptations so, naturally, they shoved this into my recommended and, naturally, i watched it. twice. which is more than i can say for the following review... so this movie is brazillian and is pretty much the cut & mold of modern cinderella movies. but she wants to be a dj. she stars out living a perfect life as a wealthy girl with a loving family, but turns out her dad is cheating on her mom with his secretary. that’s when she “stops believing in love”. which is actually valid bc if i saw one of my parental figures cheating on the other, i honestly wouldn’t know what to believe in anymore. anyway, cíntia dorella (yes. that’s her full name.) and her mom move into her aunt’s place. a year or so passes. stepmother/secretary/cheating lady is throwing an extravagant birthday party for her daughters and hires freddy prince, a popular musician who cíntia doesn’t really like. meanwhile, cíntia gets a dj gig she’s excited for until she finds out she’s the opener for freddy prince at her stepsisters’ party. she ends up disguising herself as “dj cinderella” and freddy is super into her. it’s pretty generic from there but i was entertained enough to watch it twice. take from that what you will.

cinderella (2015) - ok so we been knew that d*sney’s live action remakes ain’t shit, and this one is no exception. d*sney within the last few years has been like 99% aesthetics and marketing. this movie was visually stunning, especially with the settings and costumes. those were the only 2 things i truly liked. everything else was forgettable. in its defense, i did read a post about the “have courage and be kind” message which is something wonderful to hold onto, especially for anyone in an abusive situation like ella. that’s valid and i respect that. i still lowkey hate this movie tho. i started getting a headache about 4 reviews ago, but remembering how much praise this movie got has reignited my fighting spirit. honestly if you like it, that’s good, you like what you like and that’s that. but this is my review and i hated how proper ella’s posture was (she’s been doing physical labor hunched on the floor for years now, how does she not slump around in exhaustion at the end of the day??), i hated how perfectly curated the whole thing was (again, that’s mostly because of d*sney and their aesthetics), and i hated how hollow everything felt. i can’t perfectly describe it, but i never felt emotionally invested in any of the characters. something about their performance was lacking and yet again i blame d*sney. i actually really like lily james, but something about the way she was directed left me devoid of emotional attachment to ella. i remember nothing about ella’s step family or the prince. that’s how much of an impact this adaptation had on me. also i just remembered the fairy godmother as i type this. i ADORE helena bonham carter, but this movie does a horrible disservice to her. if she liked working on this movie, then i’m happy for her, but even she wasn’t strong enough to sell this to me. i saw this movie in theaters and came out of it lamenting my waste of money that i could have spent on something i would have actually enjoyed. but the thing that enraged me the most, the thing i despised, i detested, the thing i seethed over and rant about to this day was the ONE (1) token black character. i don’t even know if he had a name but he was captain of the guard or some shit. if i remember correctly (but probably not tbh this movie was so forgettable), he was the one who heard ella singing and was the whole reason the prince was able to have her try on the glass slipper. this man, who had zero character development, zero relevance to the plot, an insignificant amount of screen time, is suddenly the reason the main character is able to finally connect with her love interest. um. What. i hate how the writers treated him and i will forever be filled with every last grain of salt over this. anyway he’s my favorite character and everyone else is just eh. to conclude this ungodly long review, i don’t like this movie. i tried to watch it again once but got so bored i quit 10 minutes in. do yourself a favor and watch cinderella (1997) instead. (the only reason this movie is ranked above the remaining 5 is the production quality. but i guess that’s unfair bc d*sney has the big bucks. and maybe i wouldn’t be so harsh if i weren’t sleep deprived and grumpy from a sugar-induced headache, but these feelings still come from my Chest so idk.)

a cinderella story: a christmas wish (2019) - i think we all secretly enjoy christmas-themed movies and this has got to be someone’s guilty pleasure. i was mildly entertained (but again with the cringey dialogue written by people clearly not in high school...) and i do like laura marano. but they autotuned her to hell and back - which i loathed - because the woman can actually sing and she has a lovely voice. she got to sing candidly one (1) time and i relished the experience. my ears thank her beautiful, un-autotuned voice. other than that it was.. fine. i didn’t hate it but i didn’t like it either. laura marano deserves better than this. (can’t say the same for the other actors tho because their roles were unmemorable.) also laura marano was super cute in her elf costume!

not cinderella’s type (2018) - i legit forgot about this one until after i compiled the entire list lol. i saw it on youtube and it was decent as far as i remember. it’s another modern day cinderella. i think the “prince” runs over “cinderella’s” cat or something?? i’m pretty sure it was her mom’s cat so now she has nothing left to remember her mom by. prince boy feels awful and tries to befriend her or do something to make it up to her, but she just doesn’t really like him. i think her aunt and uncle are emotionally abusive to her and prince boy does his best to be there for her without making things worse. if i remember correctly, i liked that aspect of the movie because it’s hard to be there for a victim of any kind of abuse if trying to help them could potentially hurt them more, especially minors still under the care of abusive guardians. anyway i think cinderella girl’s best friend is in love with her or something but she ends up not being into him and slowly gets together with prince boy. she eventually moves out of her guardians’ house and into the spare house at prince boy’s home (he’s rich or something). i need to rewatch this movie tbh i could be wrong about everything here lol.

rags (2012) - not amazing, definitely not memorable because i have nothing to say about its plot or writing, but it has keke palmer which is its one redeeming quality. also it’s the only one on this list where the male protagonist is the cinderella. so that’s solid i guess.

a cinderella story: if the shoe fits (2016) - this was a movie. it happened. i vaguely remember how ridiculous it was and sometimes i felt secondhand embarrassment. i don’t remember what about specifically, but i remember the emotion. sofia carson is a talented singer. i think she’s a decent actor but this script was Bad.

elle: a modern cinderella tale (2010) - i only watched this one because i was bored out of my damn mind and saw it on youtube. i felt bad for all the actors because this script was terrible. i don’t recommend this unless you’re about to sit down with your squad and make fun of it.

apparently descendants is on the “cinderella adaptations and references” list on imdb but i refuse to put it on my list because it’s not a cinderella-specific adaptation and i don’t like the descendants franchise. now, if we’re going to discuss a quality series about the children of fairytale characters, that would hands down be ever after high. but that’s a different topic for a different day.

thus concludes the ranking no one asked for but i felt compelled to make. thank you and goodnight

[timeagainreviews]

The surprising similarities of Doctor Who and Twin Peaks

Earlier today, a friend of mine asked me why I chose to do a blog about both Doctor Who and Twin Peaks. He thought it was a very odd pairing. While explaining to him some of my various reasons, I realised that it would actually make a rather interesting article to talk about the similarities between both shows. Believe it or not, there are several. My hope is to possibly garner new interest in either show for Whovians and Peakies alike.

I know a lot of you are here for the Doctor Who content, but I would like to think that a sliver of you are also interested in the Twin Peaks content. That being said, this article will contain some minor spoilers for both Twin Peaks and Doctor Who. Though I will try and maintain the central mystery without giving too much away. I’ve toyed with the idea of writing articles about Twin Peaks outside of episode recaps, but I’ve always shied away for fear of spoilers. Consider yourself warned!

A tale of two pilots

I’ve gone over this in previous blogs that both Twin Peaks and Doctor Who have two separate pilot episodes, albeit for totally different reasons. In the case of Doctor Who, the second pilot was filmed after it was decided that the first one failed to capture the correct tone for the Doctor. Because of this, a reshoot was done, softening the First Doctor’s irascible temper to something more relatable. His cantankerousness was dialled back to rebelliousness, and our protagonist began to feel less like the villain.

In the case of Twin Peaks, the second version of its pilot episode was filmed for the sake of European markets. Having had a rather profitable year, the network ABC was willing to take a gamble on a dark horse in the form of a little project from Mark Frost and David Lynch. However, they only ordered the one episode upfront. Figuring it may never see more than a pilot, an extended version of the episode was filmed to include a conclusion of the story for European markets. While this version of the pilot was not aired in the states, it is widely available on DVD release.

This may seem like a tenuous connection at best. But both of the unused pilots can be viewed as a means to further understand their respective shows. Seeing the Doctor act like a jerk gives a bit of insight into just how far is too far. People may complain that the First Doctor is a cranky old man, but seeing the original pilot of "An Unearthly Child," really illustrates the delicate nature of that balance. Similarly, watching the masterful work of David Lynch’s perfect introduction of Twin Peaks wrap itself up in a clunky, tacked on extra thirty minutes feels just as hollow. People may complain that Twin Peaks leaves too much to mystery, but seeing it end in a shootout makes you appreciate the ambiguity of later episodes. Both pilots prove that sometimes less is more.

Time Off

Both TV shows were cancelled and subsequently brought back to air years later. After 26 seasons of travelling in time and space, Doctor Who had been booted by the head of BBC. After only two seasons Twin Peaks was cancelled by ABC, far before its time. Later, both series attempted a sort of reboot, or revival in the form of movies, both of which were panned by critics. At this point, the only places either show really existed were within the hearts of fans. You may have seen the occasional convention, magazine, or book, but it would appear that both beloved series were dead in the water.

However, it is that very flame kept lit by the fans that gave each series its respective cult status. After years of fans wondering if their favourite shows would get the revivals they so deserved, it would seem their prayers were finally answered. Oddly enough, neither show was a complete reboot, with each acting as a continuation of their original storylines. While each revival has its share of detractors, purists who prefer the original show, overall they were both considered very successful. Much of this is owed to the fact that the creators opted not to be slavishly devoted to the source material, but to instead make something new that still managed to respect the past. Instead of purely playing into nostalgia, they make a case for their own existence by being something new.

Some not so familiar faces

One of Doctor Who’s greatest strengths is that it was able to inject longevity into the show by introducing the concept of regeneration. While most shows die when their actors leave the show, Doctor Who was able to write replacing the actors into the narrative by making it a biological function of the main character. Like Mary’s claim of a virgin birth, its an idea so unique that you can only get away with it the one time. Anyone who replaces their actors in such a way would just be copying Doctor Who, right?

Enter Twin Peaks. Aside from outright replacing actors, as in the case of Donna Hayward in “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me,” David Lynch has taken a rather novel approach to replace actors who have either died or refused to return. Take, for instance, the actor Michael J. Anderson who played “The Man from Another Place,” (or the Arm) in both the series and the movie. After a payment dispute, Anderson claimed that he was “irreplaceable.” And when you consider just how deep his character goes into the mythos of Twin Peaks, it’s hard to disagree. That is, unless you’re David Lynch.

Lynch’s solution to losing Anderson was to simply replace him with a central nervous system/tree with a brain like a wadded piece of chewing gum for a head. And you know what? It actually worked. Referring to it as a sort of “evolution,” the audience needed only to take a moment to bask in the brilliance, and then move on. The same method was used to replace David Bowie with a machine that resembled a tea kettle, or the villainous Bob with a floating black orb containing his face. No actor? No problem.

The surprising fact is that the mythology of both shows was able to sustain what would normally be considered insane narrative choices. As opposed to jumping the shark, these changes actually deepened the mythos of either show. From their conception, both Doctor Who and Twin Peaks are so unique that they have been able to write, and rewrite their own rules.

Relative dimensions in space

Whether it’s a blue police box that is bigger on the inside or a convenience store that disappears like a TARDIS, neither show seems all that interested in obeying the laws of physics. Physical space is a minor obstacle to be manoeuvred around with an almost godlike technology bordering on magic. We see creatures using otherwise mundane objects to completely sidestep reality. Pictures hanging on walls are portals into entire worlds. Stuccoed buildings act as gateways opening up to boxes floating in space. Portals open deep in the woods to take us into terrifying dimensions that boggle the mind.

Interestingly enough, both shows approach these elements seemingly from opposite ends of the spectrum. With Twin Peaks, what has been hinted at possibly being aliens, may actually be something more spiritual. With Doctor Who, something that is hinted at as spiritual is usually aliens. Regardless, in both instances, matter is simply a plaything of beings far more advanced than we mere mortals.

Time and time again

Wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff isn’t just a thing that affects the Doctor. The heroes of Twin Peaks also experience their fair share of time displacement. Whether it’s a hole punched into the universe by an atomic bomb that imprints the 1940′s onto a dimension visited by Lewis and Clark, or a trip in the TARDIS to the time of Lewis and Clark, both storylines are tangled in a web of timelines threatening the fate of everyone involved.

As we learn with the Doctor, so too do we learn in the case of Dale Cooper that toying with timelines is not an exact science. Distortions happen. Things change. People tend to disappear. Once you cross that threshold, it could all be different. Even with the greatest of plans, our heroes in the fight between good and evil may find themselves in a never-ending battle. At the end of the day, even the best of intentions can be undone by a simple time loop.

They both changed television forever

From their very first episodes, both Twin Peaks and Doctor Who aimed to be something different. I’ve said in the past that Doctor Who operates on a level of surrealism rarely seen in science fiction. In a similar manner, Twin Peaks injects a heaping dose of the surreal into both the soap opera and police procedural genres. Because of this, they each come off as incredibly unique stories that stand apart from everything else. Many imitators have come and gone in the years since, but very few have achieved the same degree of success.

These aren’t just lighting in a bottle moments either. The unique nature of either show acts as a response to what came before it. These are deliberate choices to make something different. Sydney Newman’s edict of “no bug-eyed monsters,” while widely ignored, actually speaks to a greater desire to make something of substance. Much in the same way, Twin Peaks exists as a comment on the shallow nature of murder mysteries of the day. Instead of focusing on the murderer, it focused on the victim and how such a crime can destroy a small town.

In their own ways, Twin Peaks and Doctor Who aimed for something deeper. Audiences weren’t just asked to experience terror. Violence was not just a thing to ramp up the tension. Along with the darkness, came a lot of light. The relationships between people were just as important as those between good and evil. Pure joy is a thing to be celebrated, and not scoffed at through pessimistic edgelording. The full spectrum of human emotion is not ignored to service a “clever,” plotline. Even though both shows occasionally lost sight of this principle, they were always at their best when, at their cores, they celebrated life. It is as the Second Doctor said- "There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things. Things that act against everything we believe in. They must be fought.”

[chiseler]

The Chiseler Interviews Tim Lucas

Born in 1956, film historian, novelist and screenwriter Tim Lucas is the author of several books, including the award-winning Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark, The Book of Renfield: A Gospel of Dracula, and Throat Sprockets. He launched Video Watchdog magazine in 1990, and his screenplay, The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes, has been optioned by Joe Dante. He lives in Cincinnati with his wife Donna. 

The following interview was conducted via email.

*

THE CHISELER: You're known for your longstanding love affair with horror films. Could you perhaps explain this allure they hold for you?

Tim Lucas: I suppose they’ve meant different things to me at different times of my life. When I was very young (and I started going to movies at my local theater alone, when I was about six), I was attracted to them as something fun but also as a means of overcoming my fears - I would sometimes go to see the same movie again until I could stop hiding my eyes, and I would often find out they showed me a good deal less than I saw behind my hands, so I learned that when I was hiding my eyes my own imagination took over. This encouraged me to look, but also to impose my own imagination on what I was seeing. Similarly, I remember flinching at pictures of various monsters in FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine, then realizing that, as I became able to stop flinching, to look more deeply into the pictures, I began to feel  compassion for Karloff’s Frankenstein Monster and admiration for Jack Pierce’s makeup. You could say that I learned some valuable life lessons from this: not to make snap judgements, not to hate or fear someone else because they looked different. I should also point out that beauty had the same intense effect on me as ugliness, in those early days at the movies. I was as frightened by the glowing light promising another appearance by the Blue Fairy in PINOCCHIO as I was by Stromboli or Monstro the Whale. I also covered my eyes when things, even colors, became too beautiful to bear.

As I got older, I found out that horror, science fiction, and fantasy films often told the unpleasant truths about our world, our government, our politics, and other people, before such things could be openly confronted in straightforward drama. So I’m not one of those people who are drawn to horror by gore or some other superficial incentive; I have always responded to them because they made me aware of unpopular truths, because they made me a more empathic person, and because they sometimes encompass a very unusual form of beauty that you can’t find in reality or in any other kind of film.

THE CHISELER: I'm fascinated by what you term "a very specific hybrid of beauty that you can’t find in reality or in any other kind of film.” Please develop that point.

Tim Lucas: For example, the aesthetic put forward by the films of David Lynch... or Tim Burton... or Mario Bava... or Roger Corman... or Val Lewton... or James Whale... or F.W. Murnau. It's incredibly varied, really; too varied to be summarized by a single name, but it's dark and baroque with a broader, deeper spectrum of color. I’ll give you an example: there is a Sax Rohmer novel called YELLOW SHADOWS - and only in a horror film can you see truly yellow shadows. Or green shadows. Or a fleck of red light on a vine somewhere out of doors. It’s a painterly version of reality, akin to what people see in film noir but even more psychological. It might be described as a visible confirmation of how the past survives in everything - we can see new artists quoting from a past master, making their essence their own.

THE CHISELER: Your definition of horror, to me, goes straight to the heart of cinema as an almost metaphysical phenomenon. My friend and frequent co-writer, Jennifer Matsui, once wrote: "Celluloid preserves the dead better than any embalming fluid. Like amber preserved holograms, they flit in and out of its parameters, reciting their own epitaphs in pantomime; revenant moths trapped in perpetual motion." Do Italian directors have what I guess you can call special epiphanies to offer? If so, does this help explain your Bava book?

Tim Lucas: The epiphanies of Italian horror all arise from the culture that was inculcated into those filmmakers as young people - the awareness of architecture, painting, writing, myth, legend, music, sculpture that they all grow up with. It's so much richer than any films that can be made by people with no foundation in the other art forms, people who makes movies just because they've seen a few - and maybe cannot even be bothered to watch any in black and white. I imagine many people go into the film business for reasons having to do with sex or power rather than having something deep down they need to express. The most stupid Italian and French directors have infinitely more in their artistic arsenals than directors from the USA, because they are brought up with an awareness of the importance of the Arts. No one gets this in America, where we slash arts and education budgets and many parents just sit their children in front of a television. Without supervision, without a sense of context, they will inevitably be drawn to whatever is loudest or most colorful or whatever has the most edits per minute. And those kids are now making blockbusters. They make money, so why screw with the formula? When I was a kid, it was still possible to find important, nurturing material on TV - fortunately!

Does it explain my Bava book? I don't know, but Bava's films somehow encouraged and sustained the passion that saw me through the researching and writing of that book, which took 32 years. When my book first came out, some people took me to task for its presumed excess - on the grounds that “our great directors” like John Ford and Orson Welles, for all their greatness, had never inspired a book of such size or magnitude. I could only answer that my love for my subject must be greater. But the thing about the Bava book, really, was that - at that time - the playing field was pretty much virgin territory in English, and Bava as a worker in the Italian film industry touched just about everything that industry had encompassed. All of those relationships needed charting. It would have been an insult to merely pigeonhole him as a horror director.

THE CHISELER: I discovered your publication, Video Watchdog, back in 2000 when Kim's Video was something of an underground institution here in NYC. I mean, they openly hawked bootlegs. There was a real sense of finding the unexpected which gave the place a genuine mystique. Now that you've had some time to reflect on its heyday, what are your thoughts, generally, on VW?

Tim Lucas: It's hard to explain to someone who just caught on in 2000, when things were already very different and more incorporated. VIDEO WATCHDOG began in 1990 as a magazine, but before that it was a feature in other magazines of different sorts that began in 1986. At that time, I was reviewing VHS releases for a Chicago-based magazine called VIDEO MOVIES, which then had a title change to VIDEO TIMES. I pointed out to my editor that his writers were reviewing the films and not saying anything about their presentation on video, and urged him to make more of a mandate about discussing aspect ratios, missing scenes (or added scenes) and such. I proposed that I write a column that would start collecting such information and that column was called "The Video Watchdog.”

In 2000, VW's origins in Beta and VHS and LaserDisc had evolved to DVD and Blu-ray was on the point of being introduced, so by then most of the battles we identified and fought had already been won and assimilated into the way movies were being presented on video. But in our early days, my fellow writers and I - were making our readers aware of filmmakers like Bava, Argento, Avati, Franco, Rollin, Ptushko, Zuławski - and the conversation we started led to people seeking out these films through non-official channels, even forming those non-official channels, until the larger companies began to realize there was an exploitable market there. Our coverage was never limited to horror - horror was sort of the hub of our interest, which radiated out into the works of any filmmaker whose work seemed in some way paranormal - everyone from Powell and Pressburger to Ishiro Honda to Krzystof Kiesłowski.

Now that the magazine is behind me, I can see more easily that we were part of a process, perhaps an integral part, of identifying and disseminating some very arcane information and, by sharing our own processes of discovery, raising the general consciousness about innumerable marginal and maverick filmmakers. A lot of our readers went on to become filmmakers (some already were) and many also went on to form home video companies or work in the business.

I'm proud of what we were able to achieve, and that what were written as timely reports have endured as still useful, still relevant criticism. Magazines tend to be snapshots of the present, and our back issues have that aspect, but our readers still tell me that the work is holding up, it’s not getting old.

When I say "we," I mean numerous writers who shared my pretentious ethic and were able to push genre criticism beyond the dismissive critical writing about genre film that was standard in 1990. I mentioned this state of things in my first editorial, that the gore approach wasn’t encouraging anyone to take horror as a genre more seriously, and I do think horror became more respectable over the years we were publishing.

THE CHISELER: My own personal touchstone, Raymond Durgnat, drilled deep into genre — particularly horror films — while pushing back instinctively against the Auteur Theory. No critic will ever write with more infatuated precision about Barbara Steele, whose image graces the cover of your Bava tome. Do you have any personal favorites in that regard; any individual author or works that acted as a kind of Virgil for you?

Tim Lucas: I haven't read Durgnat extensively, but when I discovered him in the 1970s his books FRANJU and A MIRROR FOR ENGLAND were gospel to me. Tom Milne's genre reviews for MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN were always intelligent and well-informed. Ivan Butler’s HORROR IN THE CINEMA was the first real book I read on the subject, along with HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT - and I remember focusing on Butler’s chapter on REPULSION, an entire fascinating chapter on a single film, which I hadn’t actually seen. It showed me the film and also how to watch it, so that when it finally came to my local television station, I was ready to meet it head on. David Pirie’s books A HERITAGE OF HORROR and THE VAMPIRE CINEMA I read to pieces. But it was Joe Dante's sometimes uncredited writing in CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN magazine that first hooked my interest in this direction - followed by the earliest issues of CINEFANTASTIQUE, which I discovered with their third issue and for which I became a regular reviewer and correspondent in 1972. I continued to write for them for the next 11 years.

THE CHISELER: I was wondering how you responded to these periodic shifts in taste and sexual politics, especially as they address horror movies — or even something like feminist critiques of the promiscuity of rage against women evident all throughout Giallo; the fear of female agency and power which is never too far from the surface. Are sexism, and even homophobia, simply inherent to the genre?

Tim Lucas: None of that really matters very much to me. I've been around so long now, I can see these recurring waves of people trying to catch their own wave of time, to make an imprint on it in some way. For some reason, I find myself annoyed by newish labels like "folk horror" and "J-horror" because such films have been with us forever; they didn't need such identification before and they have only been invented to get us more quickly to a point, and sometimes these au courant labels simply rebrand work without bringing anything substantially new to the discussion. Every time I read an article about the giallo film, I have to suffer through another explanation of what it is - and this is a genre whose busiest time frame was half a century ago. Sexism and homophobia are things people generally only understand in terms of the now, and I don’t know how fair it is to apply such concepts to films made so long ago. Think of Maria’s torrid dance in METROPOLIS and all those ravenous young men in tuxedos eating her with their eyes. Sexist, yes - but that’s not the point Lang was making.

I don’t particularly see myself as normal, but I suppose I am centrist in most ways. I don’t bring an agenda to the films I write about, other than wanting them to be as complete and beautifully restored as possible. That said, I am interested in, say, feminist takes on giallo films or homosexual readings of Herman Cohen films because - after all - we all bring ourselves to the movies, and if there’s more to be learned about a film I admire, from outside my own experience, that can be precious information. I want to know it and see if I can agree with it, or even if it causes me to feel something new and unfamiliar about it.

My only real concern is that genre criticism tends to be either academic or conversational (even colloquial), and we’re now at a point where the points made by articles published 20 or more years ago are coming back presented as new information, without any idea (or concern) that these things have already been said. As magazines are going by the wayside, taking their place is talk on social media, which is not really disciplined or constructive, nor indeed easily retrievable for reference. There are also audio commentaries on DVD and Blu-ray discs. Fortunately, there are a number of good and serious people doing these, but even when you get very intelligent or intellectual commentators, they often work best with the movie image turned off, because it’s a distraction from what’s being said. Is that true commentary? I'm not an academic; I’m an autodidact, so I don't have the educational background to qualify as a true intellectual, and I feel left out by a lot of academic writing. I do read a good deal and have familiarity with a fair range of topics, so I tend to frame myself somewhere between the vox populist and academia. That's the area we pursued in VW.

THE CHISELER: David Cairns and I once published a critical appreciation of Giallo, using fundamentally Roman Catholic misogyny — and, to a lesser extent, fear of gay men — as an intriguing lens. For example, lesbians are invariably sinister figures in these movies, while straight women ultimately function as nothing more than cinematographic objects: very fetishized, very well-lit corpses, you might say.

Tim Lucas: See, I admire a lot of giallo films but it would never occur to me to see them through a lens. I do, of course, because personal experience is a lens, but my lens is who I am and I’ve never had to fight for or defend my right to be who I am. I have no particular flag to wave in these matters; I approach everything from the stance of a film historian or as a humanist.

There is a lot of crossdressing and such in giallo, but these are tropes going back to French fin de siècle thrillers of the early 1900s, they don't really have anything to do with homophobia as we perceive it in our time. In the Fantomas novels, Souvestre and Allain (the authors) used to continually deceive their readers by having their characters - the good and the evil ones - change disguises, and sometimes apparently change sexes.

I remember Dario Argento saying that he used homosexual characters in his films because he was interested in their problems. He seldom actually explored their problems, and their portrayal in his earliest films is… quaint, to be kind about it… but it was a positive change as time played out. I think the fact that Argento’s flamboyant style attracted gay fans brought them more into his orbit and the vaguely sinister gay characters of his early films become more three dimensional and sympathetic later on, so in that regard his attention to such characters charts his own gradual embracing of them. So in a sense they chart his own widening embrace of the world, which is surprising considering what a misanthropic view of the world he presents.

THE CHISELER: But Giallo is roughly contemporaneous to the rise of Second Wave Feminism. Like the Michael & Roberta Findlay 'roughies', this is not a fossilized species of extinct male anger we're talking about here. Women's bodies are the energy of pictorial composition; splayed specifically for the delectation of some very confused and pissed off men in the audience. I know of no exceptions. To me it makes perfect sense to recognize the ritualized stabbings, stranglings, the BDSM hijinks in Giallo as rather obvious symptoms of somebody's not-so-latent fear and hatred.

Tim Lucas: I think that’s a modernist attitude that was not all that present at the time. Once the MPAA ratings system was introduced in late 1968, all genres of films got stronger in terms of graphic violence and language, and suspense thrillers were no exception. At the time, women and gay people were feeling freer, freer to be themselves, and were not looking for new ways to be taken out of films, however they might be represented. Neither base really had that power anyway at that time, but at any rate it wasn’t a time for them to appear more conservative. That would come at a later period when they felt more assured and confident in their equality. Throughout the 1960s, even in 1969 films like THE WRECKING CREW and BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, you can see that women are still playthings of a sort in films; there are starting to be more honest portrayals of women in films like HUD, but the prevailing emphasis of them is still decorative, so it makes sense that they would be no different in a thriller setting. There’s no arguing, I don’t think, that the murder scenes become more thrilling when the victim is a beautiful, voluptuous woman. It’s nothing to do with misogyny but rather about wanting to induce excitement from the viewer. If you look back to Janet Leigh’s character arc in PSYCHO, the exact same thing happens to her, but because she’s a well-developed character and time is given to explore that character and her goals and motivations, there is no question that it is a role women would want to play, even now. However, the same simply isn’t true of most giallo victims, which should not be seen as one of their rules but as one of their faults. In BLOOD AND BLACK LACE, I think Mario Bava shows us just enough of the women characters for us to have some investment in their fates - but when the giallo films are in the hands of sausage makers, you’re going to feel a sense of misogyny. It may be real but it may also be misanthropy or a more commercial mandate to pack more into a film and to sex it up. I should add that, because I’m not a woman or gay, I don’t bring personal sensitivities to these things, so I see them as something that just comes with the territory, like shoot-outs in Westerns. If you were to expunge anything that was objectionable from a giallo film, wouldn’t it be just another cop show or Agatha Christie episode? You watch a giallo film because, on some level, you want to see something with the hope of some emotional or aesthetic involvement, or with the hope of being outraged and offended. There is no end of mystery entertainment without giallo tropes, so it’s there if you demand that. Giallo films aren’t really about who done it, only figuratively; they are lessons in how to stage murder scenes and probably would not exist without the master painting of PSYCHO’s shower scene, which they all seek to emulate.

THE CHISELER: You mentioned Val Lewton earlier. Personally, I've never encountered anything like the overall tone of his films. There's always something startling to see and hear. Would you shed a little light on his importance?

Tim Lucas: He's an almost unique figure in film in that he was a producer yet he projected an auteur-like imprint on all his works. The horror films for which he's best known are not quite like any other films of their kind; I remember Telotte's book DREAMS OF DARKNESS using the word "vesperal" to describe the Lewton films' specific atmosphere - a word pertaining to the mood of evening prayer services, which isn't a bad way of putting it. I've always loved them for their delicacy, their poetical sense, their literary quality, and their indirectness - which sometimes co-exists with sources of florid garishness, like the woman with the maracas in THE LEOPARD MAN. In THE SEVENTH VICTIM, one shy character characterizes the heroine's visit to his apartment as her "advent into his world," and when I first saw it, I was struck by the almost spiritual tenderness and vulnerability of that description. Lewton was remarkable because he seems to have worked in horror because it was below the general studio radar, which allowed him to make extremely personal films. As long as they checked the necessary boxes, he could make the films he wanted - and I think Mario Bava learned that exact lesson from him.

THE CHISELER: I've always been fascinated by a question which is probably unanswerable: Why do you think it is that movies based on Edgar Allan Poe stories — even those films that only just pretend to sink roots in Poe, offering glib riffs on his prose at best — invariably bear fruit?

Tim Lucas: Poe's writings predate the study of human psychology and, to an extent, chart it - so he can be credited with founding a wing of science much like Jules Verne's writings were the foundation of science fiction and, later, science fact. Also, from the little we know of Poe's personal life, his writing was extremely personal and autobiographical, which makes it all the more compelling and resonant. It's also remarkably flexible in the way it lends itself to adaptation - there is straight Poe, comic Poe, arty Poe, even Poeless Poe. It helps too that a lot of people familiar with him haven't read him extensively, at least not since school, or think they have read him because they've seen so many Poe movies. The sheer range of approaches taken to his adaptation makes him that much more universal.

It also occurs to me that people are probably much more alike internally than they are externally, so the identification with an internal or first person narrator may be more immediate. But it's true that his work has inspired a fascinating variety of interpretation. You can see this at work in a single film: SPIRITS OF THE DEAD (1968), which I’ve written an entire book about. It’s three stories done by Roger Vadim, Louis Malle, and Federico Fellini - all vastly different, all terribly personal expressions of the men who made them.

THE CHISELER: Speaking of Poe adaptations, I've long thought it's time to confront Roger Corman's legacy; as an artist, a producer, an industrial muse, everything. Sometimes I think he's the single most important figure in cinema history. And if that's a wild overstatement, I could stand my ground somewhat and point out that no one person ever supported independent filmmakers with such profound results. It's as though he used his position at a mainstream Hollywood studio to open a kind of Underground Railroad for two generations of film artists. He gave so many artists a leg up in a business where those kinds of opportunities were never exactly abundant that it's hard to keep track. Entering the subject from any angle you like, what are your thoughts on Corman's overall contribution to cinema?

Tim Lucas: I can think of more important filmmakers than Corman, but there has never been a more important producer or mogul or facilitator of films. I said this while introducing him on the first of our two-night interview at the St. Louis Film Festival’s Vincentennial in 2011. He was largely responsible for every trend in American cinema during its most decisive quarter century - 1955 through 1980, and to some extent a further decade still, which bore an enormous influx of talent he discovered and nurtured. People talk about Irving Thalberg, Darryl F. Zanuck, Steven Spielberg, etc. - but their productions don’t begin to show the sheer diversity of interests that you get from Corman’s output. He has no real counterpart. I’ve spent a lot of the past 20 years musing on him, first as the protagonist of a comedy script I wrote with Charlie Largent called THE MAN WITH KALEIDOSCOPE EYES, which Joe Dante has optioned. A few years ago, I decided to turn the script into a novel, which is with my agent now. It’s about the time period before, during, and after the making of THE TRIP (1966). It's a comedy but one with a serious, even philosophical side.

You know, Mario Bava once described himself to someone as “the Italian Roger Corman.”  It’s incredible to me that Bava would have said that, not because it’s wrong or even because he was a total filmmaker before Corman made his first picture, but because Bava has been dead for so long! He’s been gone now almost 40 years and Roger is still making movies. And he’s been making movies for the DTV market longer than anybody, so he sort of predicted the current exodus of new movies away from theaters to streaming formats.

THE CHISELER: Are there any other producers/distributors you'd care to acknowledge, anyone that you think has followed in what you might call Corman’s Tradition of Generosity?

Tim Lucas: No, I really think he is incomparable in that respect. I do think it’s important to note, however, that I doubt Roger was ever purely motivated by generosity of spirit. I don’t think he would put money or his trust in anyone merely as a favor. He’s a businessman to his core and his gambles have always been based on projects that are likely to improve on his investment, even if moderately. I have a feeling that the first dollar he ever made is still in circulation, floating around out there bringing something new into being. I also don’t think he would give anyone their big break unless they had earned that break already in some respect. And when he does extend that opportunity, he’s got to know that, when these people graduate from his company, he’ll be sacrificing their talent, their camaraderie, maybe even in some cases their gratitude. So yes, there is some generosity in that aspect - but he also knows from experience that there are always new top students looking to extend their educations on the job. I wish more people in the film business had his selflessness, his ability to recognize and encourage talent. It may be his greatest legacy.

THE CHISELER: You introduced me, many years ago, to Mill of the Stone Women — I'll end on a personal note by thanking you and asking: Would you share an insight or two about this remarkable gem, particularly for readers who may not have seen it?

Tim Lucas: MILL OF THE STONE WOMEN was probably my first exposure to Italian horror; I saw it as a child, more than once, on local television and there were things about it that haunted and disturbed me, though I didn't understand it. Perhaps that's why it haunted and disturbed me, but the image of Helfy's hands clutching the red velvet curtains stayed with me for decades (a black and white memory) until I got to see it on VHS - I paid $59.95 for the privilege because my video store told me they would not be stocking it. It's a very peculiar film because Giorgio Ferroni wasn't a director who favored horror; the "Flemish Tales" that it's supposedly based on is non-existent, a Lovecraftian meta-invention, and it's the only Italian horror filmed in that particular region in the Netherlands. It looks more Germanic than Italian. I’m tempted to believe Bava may have had a hand in doing the special effects shot, which look like his work, but they might also have been done by his father Eugenio, as he was also a wax figure sculptor so would have been good to have on hand. He seldom took screen credit. So it's a film that has stayed with me because it's elusive; it's hard to find the slot where it belongs. It's like an adult fairy tale, or something out of E.T.A. Hoffmann. I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve wasted, trying to find another movie with the unique spell cast by that one.

[cosmicpopcorn]

Captain Marvel (2019): Feminism, Diversity, and the 90s, oh my!

Warning: Spoilers, possibly. I always like to warn a nigga just in case.

Note to Readers: Yes, Cosmic Popcorn is back up and running! Last year, I went on an impromptu hiatus due to life being...well, life. Now I’m back and determined to pick back up where I left off on my journey of providing informal movie and TV reviews and discussions on astrology and all things cosmic. 

Without further ado, let’s get into Captain Marvel. 

If ya’ll remember the post credits scene from Avengers: Infinity War, Nick Fury sends one last message to someone, somewhere on an old ass looking communication device right before he turns to dust...and we see a star-shaped logo confirming that his message has been sent. 

He was sending that message off to good ol’ Captain Marvel aka Carol Danvers. Captain Marvel has a very diverse, interesting history in the comics...in fact, Carol Danvers is the 7th Captain Marvel in the comics. To read more about that dope history, check out this article here: The Weird and Diverse Comic Book History of Captain Marvel. 

Now, the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) do divert from the comics in a lot of ways. So MCU Carol Danvers is a former air force officer who was under the mentorship of physicist Dr. Wendy Lawson, who was actually a Kree scientist who disagreed with the Kree’s war with the Skrulls and had fled to Earth. Dr. Wendy Lawson (her alias) aka Mar-Vell (her real name) was using the Tesseract (Space Stone) to create an engine that would have helped the Skrulls to live beyond the reach of the Kree empire and she had enlisted Danvers’ help in this mission. But they are discovered by Yon-Rogg, a Kree commander who is the leader of Starforce (a Kree military task-force). During the fight between Mar-Vell and Yon-Rogg, Carol shoots the engine in an attempt to prevent Yon-Rogg from getting it and it explodes in her face, causing her to absorb the Tesseract’s energy/powers, thus making her Captain Marvel. Her memories of who she is and her life on Earth are mostly altered/erased and she becomes one of the members of the Starforce, under Yon-Rogg’s direction and mentorship. 

The movie was directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck. Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel is played by actress Brie Larson. I first remember seeing her in United States of Tara and really enjoying watching her character on screen. She has also played in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Community, and Room (which she won an Oscar for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role). Obviously, she’s been in a ton of other shit, won a bunch of awards and been nominated for others but I am not about to lay this woman’s resume out for y’all - just know she’s been here for awhile and she’s accomplished. Lol.

Nick Fury is obviously played by the wonderful Samuel L. Jackson, and y’all should damn well know who he is. He’s one of our national treasures in my opinion, right along with Terry Crews. Not to mention he’s already been present in the other MCU movies. He’s the character with the second most screen time in the movie outside of the obvious Captain Marvel. 

Other actors worth mentioning: Talos/Keller is played by Ben Mendelsohn, Jude Law is Yon-Rogg, Annette Bening is Dr. Wendy Lawson, and we have Lashana Lynch as Maria Rambeau, with Akira Akbar as her daughter Monica Rambeau. The cast overall is very diverse - comprised of people of color and women in starring roles. And based on what I’ve personally read on Captain Marvel’s comic book history, this is the essence of her story - breaking through barriers and giving power to a range of different people who may not have had it before, who were not usually represented in certain roles and positions of power.

I’ll be honest, it’s difficult for me to review and critique Marvel movies because the quality of their movies these days is usually pretty high...even the mediocre or bad ones are significantly better than other mediocre/bad non-superhero movies. I go into these movies with a bias towards them and it’s hard for me to see flaws unless they’re extremely obvious and detract from the overall quality of the movie in a major way. I will always try to be honest about a movie...but how I feel is how I feel and I feel Marvel movies are usually pretty great. So when it comes to these movies, I’ll present my thoughts on various aspects of them instead of the usual pros vs. cons approach unless it calls for it. 

I basically really liked and enjoyed Captain Marvel. I don’t regret the experience at all and feel it’s worth the movie ticket. Here are some thoughts on the movie: 

Brie Larson was a good choice for Captain Marvel: I’ve heard people complain about the decision for Brie Larson to play Carol Danvers aka Captain Marvel, with some of the main reasons for their complaints being that she appeared to be too stoic, didn’t smile or laugh enough and that her portrayal of Captain Marvel was bland. I felt that she expressed the appropriate amount of emotion for the character and for the scenes she had. We must also keep in mind that Carol Danvers was an air force officer on Earth, a member of Starforce on Hala while being with the Kree, and also had been taught to not be emotional and that her emotionality was a weakness. So...why the fuck would she be super emotional and expressional?! I’m not sure what was expected - did they want lots of crying and giggles? We don’t ask for Captain America, Iron Man or the Hulk to be more emotional or smile more and this specific critique reeks of sexist undertones to me.

Captain Marvel was portrayed well in this origin movie and Brie Larson did a fine job. Yes, I am saying this as someone who did not grow up reading the comics. We are discussing the MCU Captain Marvel, not the comics. And we already know that when converting books or comics to movies, shit gets changed. They have the same source, but they are still different.

As a 90s baby, I enjoyed the blast from the past: This origin movie is set in 1995 and has things like pay phones, Blockbuster, slow ass internet, internet cafes and the music, oh my, the music. I loved it all. I don’t miss any of that, except maybe the music, but it’s nice to wax nostalgic sometimes. 

Nick Fury and Captain Marvel are cute AF: I loved watching Samuel L. Jackson and Brie Larson on screen as Fury and Marvel. They had just the right amount of chemistry and played off of each other very well. I know Fury has gone to dust, but maybe we’ll get to see a nice, cute reunion in Endgame? One can only hope. 

They did well at helping Samuel L. Jackson go back in time as Fury: I was pleasantly surprised how good Sam looked as young Fury - usually aging actors and actresses, whether younger or older is something that has a high possibility of not being done well and they did a fantastic job here. My man looked good!

I loved that Nick Fury got a lot of screen time: We got to learn a lot more about the character, his past, and really see his personality shine here. We also learned about how he lost his eye. Once again, I really do hope to see more of Fury in Endgame. And with Fury and his eye in mind, shoutout to Goose the cat, that’s my nigga. 

Captain Marvel doesn’t have a strong villain and it doesn’t need it: One of the complaints about the movie was the lack of a strong villain like Killmonger or Thanos. However, with this being an origin movie, I see it being more focused on how Captain Marvel comes to being and how she becomes a hero, any villain present is only there to showcase her powers and as a plot device. That’s not how it is in all origin movies - Black Panther had a very strong, well-developed villain, but here, it appears the villain almost takes a backseat to other aspects of the movie. Her “villains” are more of society’s sexism, her own self-doubt, identity struggles, and her rejection of the emotional parts of herself. The people around her either enforce, support and/or represent those “villains” (e.g. Yon-Rogg) or push her to break against those barriers and embrace her power (e.g. Nick Fury). 

Captain Marvel has a diverse cast and clearly wants to empower young women and girls: I loved the fact that our main character was a woman, her main supporting character was a black man, and the other important supporting characters were a black woman and a beautiful black girl. Yes, there were white men and other white people all around, lol, but a good amount of the ones with a lot of screen time were not. The movie also rejected sexist ideas such as: emotionality and being emotionally expressive being a negative trait, women having to smile for men and always appear pleasant or pretty, women not being capable of being in traditionally male-dominated fields and not being capable participating in male-dominated or traditionally male activities. It says a giant FUCK YOU to all these things. It also hints towards Marvel’s first African-American female superhero, Photon. 

Brie Larson was right in her Crystal Award for Excellence in Film acceptance speech: In her speech, she presents statistics regarding movie critics - bringing to light that a large, overwhelming amount of movie critics were older, white men and that white women, women of color and men of color are largely unrepresented when it comes to movie critiques. She explains the importance of reviews and the impact it has on what movies can be bought and seen, how much money a movie grosses and what movies are nominated for awards. Overall, she encourages more inclusivity and for critiques of movies to be done by a more diverse group of people - a group that includes more white women, women of color and men of color, especially since some movies are, let’s face, simply not made for white men or with white men in mind. Not mention, as she said, people other than older white men also like Star Wars. You can hear that speech here.

She ain’t say anything wrong and anyone who has a problem with this speech obviously has some unaddressed sexism they need to tend to. Because, I mean...are you saying only older white men like these types of movies? Are we saying their opinions on media are the most important? Do we not want to hear from white women, women of color and men of color...since we are, you know, also part of this world and consume this media? And considering the diversity present in Marvel comics and films, considering the messages about sexism, racism, feminism, etc. that are present in the stories of heroes like Black Panther and Captain Marvel...are you really trying to tell me these were only made for and primarily focused only on older white men? Get the fuck outta here. I don’t care what a 40-year-old white dude has to say about what he doesn’t like about A Wrinkle in Time either. 

All in all, I enjoyed this movie and it got me hype of Avengers: Endgame. Instinctually and based on conversations with others and hearing about flaws they felt were present such as pacing issues, actress choice, etc., I feel these flaws were mostly based on opinion (opinions that I don’t agree with) and in my opinion either are subtle (such as pacing issues) and/or simply don’t exist (such as actress choice being a problem). However, this isn’t Black Panther and while it doesn’t really have any cons (major or minor) that come to mind, it does lack the aspects of Black Panther that earned it a 5 Caramel Popcorn Pieces rating. With that in mind, I give it 5 Butter Popcorn Pieces. 

Rating: 5 Butter Popcorn Pieces

[filmjrnl365]

#118 The Art Life (2016)

Director:

Rick Barnes

Olivia Neergaard - Holm

Jon Nguyen

United States

In Kristine McKenna’s book, Room to Dream, both she and David Lynch go into great detail about Lynch’s formative childhood memories, and the impact of the discovery of fellow painter Bushnell Keeler. In the movie The Art Life, we are provided documentary footage of the private studio life of David Lynch. Both of these works are highly recommended to anyone interested in acquiring more information of the life and work of David Lynch, but they tackle different topics from different vantage points.

McKenna’s book, written along with David Lynch himself, explores Lynch’s biography. A chronological look at both his personal and creative life. The book shies away from in depth analysis of his films, and offers more anecdotal and contextual information. This is very useful content, because it draws some very tangible connections between the images in his films, and what is going on in Lynch’s life outside the screen.

In contrast, The Art Life approaches Lynch as a creative person. One who not only directs films, but writes, draws, paints, sculpts, and is constantly tinkering in a studio that is packed with all kinds of odd paraphernalia. A fair amount of these “projects” make their way into his films. Eraserhead for example, due to Lynch’s lack of money, was essentially a hand built movie, where every prop and affect was the product of his thrift store resourcefulness and manual dexterity. In The Art Life, we see this impulse at work. It is the one constant in Lynch’s life. The film has a lot of contemporary footage of Lynch’s studio, a kind of modernist shed tucked within the Hollywood Hills.  We see telling details, a reproduction of Hieronymous Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights pinned to the wall, cob webs, old tools, stacked papers, dirty fingernails etc. We see Lynch with surgical gloves on, slathering a paste like material onto a painting, or scrawling adolescent lettering around tortured cartoons.  One image remains constant throughout the film: the image of David Lynch, his blaze of unruly hair, enveloped in cigarette smoke. There is a lot of silence. This is not a confessional where Lynch rambles on in minute detail about anything. He reminisces about key people and events, but this serves more to prompt his memory or feeling of memory, so analysts of Lynch hoping to hear the director’s confessionals about definitive meanings to his movie’s ambiguities will be disappointed. I actually appreciated this about the movie. I would rather most of the mystery remain intact.

The documentary shows Lynch at work on his paintings, and shows how he made his way into cinema via the study of painting. It may be inaccurate to say the “study” of painting, since by these two sources, Lynch was for the most part, a promising, but less than consistent student. But once David found himself in the company of others who were real artists, or ones who shared the same degree of passion, he proved to be quite driven and consistent. In the end, Lynch just hated school. What was pivotal to Lynch was what he called “The Art Life”. The proposition that a person could build their own life / reality around the singular, almost fanatical dedication to the creative process. A process that allows the  realization of virtually unrestricted freedom. This was the key epiphany for Lynch, and for his own life’s direction, the Art Life became an all or nothing proposition.

The result of this artistic resolution does impact Lynch’s cinematic work, both on a practical as well as aesthetic level. Lynch became admitted into the Hollywood system as an outsider. And throughout his career he has inhabited both sides of Hollywood’s cinematic orthodoxy. Eraserhead, was his cultish debut film, a god-send opportunity from the American Film Institute. The Elephant Man, legitimized him as a bankable director. Dune, threw him back into dubious territory. In all of these works, Lynch’s approach to creating characters and imagery does have some continuity, and patterns and connections begin to emerge. Nothing goes to waste – a spare napkin in a break room could provide a character sketch, a stray piece of wood or lumber could be instrumental as a prop, or critical to the mood of a scene. Lynch makes a lot of stuff from the discarded stuff that everyone else throws away. And anyone who has been to art school knows that this is one of the first things you learn as a penniless visionary –you borrow or dig into dumpsters whenever you can! So it stands to reason, that if you hand a guy like that a sizable Hollywood budget, be prepared, because there is now ample monetary space for his imagination to run wild.

However, not everything works. Lynch’s creative process is not a streamlined one. It is not programmatic or didactic in the sense of say Minimalism. Lynch scrapes around in the dark, and in the ambiguous; he approaches things by feel, rather than reason. This could be confusing to many watching this film, but Lynch provides key narration.  We see him in a dark studio behind a solitary microphone, as Lynch recalls key memories or connections. In the bizarre reality of David Lynch, The Art Life offers us a guided tour, but we can still only get so close to the allusive truth. We are still left with much that remains an enigma, and we are left with this: if one really wants to get inside the head of the creator, inside the inner workings of David Lynch, it’s probably best to immerse yourself into the films. There you have all of his projects and tinkerings on full display, his music, his writing, his drawing, his painting, and of course the films themselves. 

The Art Life is an important documentary to watch. It is probably the most honest and direct account of what David Lynch does with a lot of his creative time; light up a cigarette, stare at a painting, and let his mind wander deep into the dream.

 https://filmjrnl365.tumblr.com

[thefutureisplywoodbikes]

The “My Top Films of 2018″ post positively no-one has been crying out for

Hi friends, it’s been a while.  I’ve been meaning to do a little monthly film round up / review thing for a while now (A suggested enterprise that I should say I have received specific encouragement for) but it felt a bit weird starting in the middle of the year so maybe consider this a warm up for that.  I HATE spoilers so rarely read any kind of detailed review for anything I feel inclined to see until after I’ve watched it, so the usual format here will be a sentence whether you should bother to go see a film, a few films that might have a similar feel of characteristics if you’re still undecided or looking for more of the same, and finally I might give some extra details or specific opinion.  If you’re a spoiler pedant like me you might want to skip this last part but I imagine most of you will be OK.

As what follows are what I consider the best films of the year, it should be a given that I suggest you seek them out and watch them.  If you can’t be arsed with or don’t want the details and discussion, of which there’s a lot below, skip down; I’ll put the list near the bottom, along with a selection of other highlights that didn’t make the cut.

Anyway, onto the business at hand.  To qualify for my long-list films had to be new releases that I’ve seen in a cinema this year.  I’ve not counted any Netflix or Amazon fare, or any classics, some of which obviously are some of the best films I’ve seen in the cinema this year, but you shouldn’t really need specific encouragement to go see Rear Window, Once Upon a Time In The West or The Apartment if you get the chance.  I did have a solid 10, but had forgotten something important, so you’re getting a top 11 and a best of the rest section instead.  

11 (also 10)

- You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay)

- A Woman’s Life (Stéphane Brizé)

Two very different films share 10th place.  You Were Never Really Here is a bruising tale of a damaged person not so much seeking redemption as just getting by.  Set in contemporary New York, it features a superb central performance from Joachin Phoenix and is beautifully shot by Lynne Ramsay.  Has a similarly feel, in terms of the editing at least, to her earlier film We Need To Talk About Kevin.  There was a lot of talk about this being a modern day Taxi Driver which is an understandable comparison given the subject matter but might unfairly raise expectations if you’re not careful; it isn’t and it isn’t trying to be.  It does however have a bit of a Paul Schrader feel to it so if you enjoyed First Reformed this would be worth a look.  Currently on Amazon Prime, if you’re not boycotting Bezos.

A Woman’s Life I saw pretty much solely on the strength of how much I liked Stéphane Brizé’s previous film, The Measure of A Man which covers similar territory to I, Daniel Blake but with considerably more subtlety and sharper focus and is for me more successful for it.  An adaptation of Guy de Maupassant first novel, Une Vie, the story as the title suggests, takes you through the life of a woman in 19th Century France.  It‘s a slow, measured and intelligent film, sympathetic, naturalistic and moving and slyly shines light on the inherent cruelty of the pervasive limitations of the patriarchal society of the time.  Not sure what to recommend for comparison since it was early in the year I saw it and I don’t think I’ve seen much else like it.  If you’re a fan of Bresson give it a look.  If you enjoyed Jacques Rivette’s The Nun maybe.  If you liked Barry Lyndon but think it needs toning down in terms of flair and mood.  Tolstoy was a big fan of the novel if that floats your boat, Mostly I’d say watch Measure of a Man and maybe track this down if you liked that.

9 

Let The Corpses Tan (Hélène Cattet, Bruno Forzani)

From the Brussel-based French duo behind Amer and The Strange Colour of Your Body’s Tears, if you’ve seen either of their earlier films you’ll have some idea of what you’re getting here.  It’s not going to be to everyone’s tastes; if you want a straightforward plot, narrative resolution or ultimately to fully understand what the fuck is going on, you’re in the wrong place, but if you like the sound of a pristinely crafted and gorgeously shot amalgamation of spaghetti western and Poliziotteschi aesthetics, this is likely very much up your street.  If you liked Mandy as a film that is effectively an homage to the mood a variety of 80′s films, I think this does similar for a different period more smoothly.  If you’re not sold by now I’m not sure what else to say but you can watch it on Amazon Prime if you’re curious.

8

Lucky (John Carroll Lynch)

On paper this shouldn’t be as good as it is.  Not a lot really happens.  It’s competently shot but not visually exceptional. It would seem to unashamedly be a vehicle to showcase the enduring charm of Harry Dean Stanton in a role that I would be astonished if i were to discovery it wasn’t written specifically for him.  And yet it’s HUGELY endearing.  It’s sweet without ever approaching being mawkish or saccharine.  Stanton is an irascible, charming and poignant delight as a man doing his best to defiantly maintain his independence while coming to terms with his encroaching mortality .  David Lynch is less convincing as a man bereft after his tortoise has escaped from the garden, yet still it all kinda works and has context.  If you’ve liked Harry Dean Stanton in anything else, but particularly Paris, Texas.  You’ll likely enjoy this.  If you’re a Twin Peaks geek, liked The Straight Story, St Vincent (As in the 2014 Bill Murray movie), Mystery Train or maybe even On Golden Pond you’ll likely be OK too.

7

Filmworker (Tony Zierra)

You’d be forgiven for not knowing who Leon Vitali, the subject of this film, is.  Some of you with better memories may place him as the actor who portrayed Lord Bullingdon in Barry Lyndon, likely because at some point you’ve looked him up after watching his superb performance wondering whatever happened to him.  What you’re unlikely to be aware of (unless you’ve already seen this) is his immense contribution to, and sacrifices for, the work of Stanley Kubrick, an ongoing commitment that will likely persist until his dying breath.   

In awe of the auteur on the set of Barry Lyndon, he effectively abandoned his acting career at the moment it was set to take off, to work with Kubrick in whatever capacity he could, over time becoming his most trusted, and woefully overworked, assistant.  There is a sense that this a tale of one man being exploited in another man’s ruthless pursuit of their vision, which in part it is, but Vitali’s devotion is effectively religious and so he commands more respect and admiration than pity for the extent he has given over his life to his passion.  If you like Kubrick, have seen and loved any on his films at the cinema, on video, DVD or blu-ray you have a responsibility to see this, because it is extremely likely that Leon is the man who has personally checked the prints and colour gradings to ensure they are precisely as they should be.  It should also be a reminder that there are hundreds of thousands of others unsung who’ve had a hand in making the films you love.

If you’re a film geek, serious cineaste or fan of any of Kubrick films but particularly the last four (Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut), you should see this.

6

Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig)

At heart Lady Bird is a simple story, very well told.  It has suitable faith in its script to keep things simple and in doing so delivers 95 breezily delightful minutes of cinema.  I saw this immediately after having endured The Shape of Water (Superficial, predictable, indulgent, emotionally-manipulative dross, with some insultingly shallow politics shoe-horned in to bolster its credibility) so the contrast may have inflated my enjoyment but after that, this was a breath of fresh air.  It has a lean, clever script flawlessly delivered by it’s stellar cast, led by primarily by the equally excellent Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf but also featuring Timotheé Chalamet and the reliably remarkable / remarkably reliable Lucas Hedges in supporting roles.  The result is a film full of well-rounded, flawed and relatable characters.  The depiction of teenagers seem particularly sharp; the traumas of negotiating the trials of burgeoning adulthood are treated sympathetically but you’re also shown achingly absurd moments of pretension that’ll likely spark a pang of amused recognition in anyone over 20.

If you liked 20th Century Women or Greta Gerwig’s other cinematic outings (I don’t think I’ve actually seen many others but it stands to reason.) you’ll likely get a kick out of this not really sure what else compares suitably.

It’s a nice film.  Give it a go if you haven’t already.

5

Phantom Thread (Paul Thomas Anderson)

The latest offering from Paul Thomas Anderson, Phantom Thread is a curious creature and a bit of departure for the director, stylistically at least.  On the surface a dry tale of a celebrated English tailor discovering a new muse and lover and the shifting of power and negotiation of compromises as their relationship develops, I’d say the real meat here is in the subtexts but I don’t want to prejudice your viewing with my half-baked theorising so I’ll say no more.  Visually sumptuous, pristinely photographed and with a deliciously acerbic and quotably witty script, you also get a trio of marvellous performances from Daniel Day-Lewis, Leslie Manville and Vicky Krieps in the lead roles.  A wry treat for all who like seductive subtlety at a steady pace and one that’s sure to benefit from repeat viewing.  (I’ve yet to rewatch myself but am keen to and in the course of writing this list I’ve been compelled to bump it up a few spots and suspect it may well have faired better if I had)

If you’re a PTA fan you’ve likely already seen this but if you need specific prompting I’d say it’s closest in spirit to The Master, but it’s still more idiosyncratic among his output than similar to the others.  If you like the barbed charm of the writing of the films of the British New Wave, or Pinter’s script for Losey’s The Servant you'll also likely find this worth your time.

4

Climax (Gaspar Noé)

Despite it's place here, I have a hard time recommending Climax. Watching it was possibly the most queasily unnerving experience I've ever had in a cinema, which is entirely it's intent.

Following the events that unfold one snowy evening at an isolated rehearsal hall where a group of dancers having a final night party fall victim to an LSD-spiked sangria, what starts out as a mesmerising display of dancing skill and exuberance slowly shifts into a hellish, decadent descent as innermost fears and desires surface and are enacted.

The film is technically spectacular, largely composed of a single twisting shot that woozily drifts among the action and skilfully approximates the helpless intoxication of the characters. Prior to this the film opens with a series of interviews with the dancers, shown on a tv flanked by videos and books, the theme of which would appear to be transgression in its various forms. It's a simple, smart device that foreshadows events to come but also lays out the story's influences and inspirations. The overall result is the sense that experience you receive has been carefully and precisely crafted, something all films obviously aim to do but that this actually delivers, extraordinarily well. Even when things slow and drag in the last 20 minutes (which they undeniably do) you feel like you're being made to endure the comedown of the preceding proceedings. It's not going to be for everyone and I'm not sure the visceral unease of seeing this in the cinema will translate to small screen viewing, but it's a brilliant affecting piece of cinema for those prepared to brave it.

If you didn't like Enter The Void, you're probably not going to like this but if you did, you probably will. The content isn't necessarily especially graphic but there's a sense of callous disregard and cruelty that made for uneasy viewing for me at least, similar to the darker moments of Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer or Man Bites Dog. You probably know by now if you're gonna watch it or not, so let's move on.

3

Utøya: July 22 (Erik Poppe)

Not to be confused with the Paul Greengrass Netflix film (Which went into production a year later than this then stole it’s working title) Utøya: July 22 is the second film on this list to centrally feature an extended tracking shot.  This one was shot in one interrupted take and, much like Climax, is a harrowing film elevated by the directorial decisions that informed and shaped its creation.  

Unfolding in real time the film shares the experience of Kaya, a teenage girl attending the summer camp on the Norwegian island of Utøya during the 2011 terrorist attack there.  It’s a heartbreaking watch.  Less generous reviews suggest it to be manipulative, others, which I am obviously  moreso inclined to agree with, feel that the films choices place the victims in the forefront of the story and in doing so highlights failings within the usual handling of such events on film and more broadly in the media, failings which, while I haven’t seen it, I have heard the aforementioned Netflix film is guilty of. While the characters in this film are fictional, their stories are based on the testimonies of survivors and survivors were heavily consulted both during the writing of the script and the filming.  The terrorist is not named and is only shown once in the distance which, given the intention of his murderous assault was to draw attention to himself and his toxic political views, is very effective at both resisting unwitting complicity in advancing these aims and preventing the victims and the horror of their experiences from being shifted into peripheral significance.  They are not merely a notorious individuals tragic statistics and  they, or any other victim of mass murder, should never be allowed to be seen in such terms.  This film has been painstakingly and thoughtfully constructed to honour them and the gravitas of their suffering and is intelligent and powerful film that deserves far greater attention.

It feels somewhat ridiculous to offer comparative suggestions for this one; it’s not an enjoyable viewing experience, so if you’re not already moved to watch it maybe you shouldn’t bother.  If you’re still undecided this does feature perhaps the most effective and emotionally involving uses of the single shot proximal viewpoint, a technique employed in a number of titles of recent years (Birdman, Victoria, The Revenant, Gravity etc.) that I’ve seen.  It something which Son of Saul was celebrated for, where the intent was similarly a claustrophobic immersion, but which, in that instance, I found somewhat distracting.  This succeeded for me where Son of Saul did not.

2

Cold War (Pawel Pawlikowski)

I still haven’t seen Pawlikowski’s previous film Ida but the strength of esteem that it garnered led me to see this without knowing anything about it.  (And if you really want to enjoy it, you should skip the rest of this and do the same.  Actually you should do that anyway, because I likely create an unreasonable high expectation by the end of this.)

The film covers a love story as it unfolds and transforms over the space of 20 years under the shadow of the Cold War.  At various points the romance is  frustrated either by the ubiquitous demands and expectations of the Soviet state apparatus or by the lovers diverging fates negotiating it.  Given the tale is loosely based on the story of his own parents, one would be forgiven for fearing this might be a melodramatic tale of predictably plucky triumph, but the nuance and complexity of the central relationship, challenged as it is by not only external forces but internal conflicts, has a suitable quantity of bitterness and disappointment to feel like a truthful portrayal.  It’s refreshingly unsentimental, as is the depiction of life under totalitarian rule and in some ways this is as much a film about the potential for lives to be crushed by oppressive regimes as it is about loves ability to resist them.

Also of note; the film is gorgeous.  The black and white photography is pristine throughout and subtly shifts with the films location.  The soundtrack comprises  Eastern European folk and 50s Jazz and, with music forming a central role in the plot, the scenes where it features most heavily stand out and are at times breathtaking.  The acting too is great with Joanna Kulig proving a particularly enchanting screen presence.  It’s a manifoldly beautiful film.

If you still need persuading (though you really shouldn’t, because by this stage I’m just over-egging the pudding) if you liked Ida obviously this’ll be up your street, if you’re a Tarkovsky fan in general you’ll likely appreciate some of the framing and pacing here but if your especially fond of Ivan’s Childhood (And if you’re not you probably should be) the look and feel of this should prove particularly appealing.  

1

Shoplifters (Hirokazu Kore-eda)

It’s unlikely that I’m alone in placing this at the top of my list.  I don’t think I’ve spoken to anyone who hasn’t liked this film.  Most have loved it.  This is very rare.  In fact, if you haven’t yet seen this, don’t bother reading further, just go see it in the cinema while you still have the chance.  (I don’t want to hear any shit about spoilers or whinging about missing it.) If you’ve seen any of Kore-eda’s other recent films (with the possible exception of The Third Murder) you will have had some idea of what to expect with this.  He is a master of tender, low-key tales of everyday life and the drama contained within.  Our Little Sister was my first encounter with his work and was my favourite film of 2016. It features the intertwining lives of three sisters who live with their grandmother and the half-sister they effectively adopt when their estranged father dies.  It’s a simple, wonderfully uplifting film that unceremoniously shows you the progressing lives of a loving family in rural Japan.  After The Storm looks at another family, this time in Tokyo and more fractured and dysfunctional but still observed with compassion and though flawed, prove deeply sympathetic and relatable.  In Shoplifters we are again presented with a family, this time a gathering of humble misfits and miscreants predominantly bonded by solidarity in the face of poverty, hardship and neglect.  Their love for each other is evident in their actions but as the film progresses it is brought into question by figures of authority and more broadly a society that though unwilling to help them when in need is more than prepared to judge and condemn them regardless of their circumstances.

This is both an overtly political film and a deeply philosophical one but fundamentally it’s an achingly sensitive and compassionate drama.  It brings to light rarely discussed economic disparity in Japan and the difficulties of those struggling to get by.  It examines what constitutes a family and questions the value of traditional familial and societal bonds when they don’t encompass a duty of care.  It lead you to reflect on you own fortunes compassion and morality.  And it does all of this simply by presenting you with a group of characters with complex stories.  Acts that might be considered otherwise outrageous are given suitable context to leave you entirely capable of empathising with the decisions to undertake them.

A devastatingly moving and humane film, this is beautifully shot, scripted, edited and brilliantly performed by a hugely talented cast.  An irrefutable masterpiece.  Must watch.

Right, below is a recap of the list then below that will be a list of notable highlights that made the long-list, for those of you not already bored shitless

IF

YOU

WERE

SKIPPING 

TO

THE

END

YOU

CAN

STOP

SCROLLING

NOW

OK, welcome back slackers. Here’s the list.

10. - You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay)

      - A Woman’s Life (Stéphane Brizé)

9.  Let The Corpses Tan (Hélène Cattet, Bruno Forzani)

8.  Lucky (John Carroll Lynch)

7.  Filmworker (Tony Zierra)

6.  Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig)

5.  Phantom Thread (Paul Thomas Anderson)

4.  Climax (Gaspar Noé)

3.  Utøya: July 22 (Erik Poppe)

2.  Cold War (Pawel Pawlikowski)

1.  Shoplifters (Hirokazu Kore-eda)

And now for the best of the rest.  You should maybe try to watch these before reading the details too

The Rider (Chloé Zhao)

This was unquestionable beautiful and does an excellent job of showing the limitations of investing in an outmoded code of masculinity, in this instance that of the cowboy.  The amateur cast effectively play versions of themselves in the thinly disguised the story of lead actor Brady Jandreau’s struggles to adjust after a severe rodeo injury curtails his career and hopes. Why it’s not in my top 10: This is a cinematic love letter to Brady and while it’s effective in display the depth of the directors affection for him and his, admittedly very endearing, family, it’s less so as a means to convince you to share it’s viewpoint if, like me, you don’t share Chloe Zhao’s unquestioning sympathy from the outset.  Questions about animal welfare, the validity of cowboy traditions, practices and iconography in the modern world and whether that imported culture dominating life on a Lakota reservation can ever be anything but a toxic cul-de-sac, all go unasked and unanswered.

The Wild Pear Tree (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

This probably should be in my top ten.  It’s absolutely spectacular.  Beautifully naturalistic and expansive in scope and ambition.  One regular customer at the cinema where I work said it authentically encapsulates the experiences of everyday Turkish life and so if that sounds up your street and you have a spare three and a bit hours to invest this is richly rewarding watch.

Why it’s not in my top 10: It’s just soooo long.  It’s 188 minutes but feels like longer, which I’d actually say is a good thing because it covers so much ground at such a measured pace you’re surprised when it’s over that you’ve experienced so much in such a, relatively, short space of time.  But it’s still exhausting.  While lengthy discussions work within the context of the film their inclusion teeters on the brink of indulgence and the main character, a youthful and arrogant would-be intellectual, is frankly a bit of a dick, and that’s a long time to spend in the company of someone you don’t necessarily like.  So in essence, while this is a masterpiece, it is a demanding one, and it’s because I found the physical experience of watching this to be more challenging than either enjoyable or invigorating that it slipped into the runners-up.  Once Upon A Time in Anatolia, which I rewatched earlier this year, manages to cover similar territory but still leave you enlivened so I was hoping this might do the same.

Leave No Trace (Debra Granik)

A well-paced, great looking and emotive little drama featuring exceptional central performance from Thomasin McKenzie and the dependably compelling Ben Foster as a father and daughter living on the margins of society in contemporary America.  Comparisons with with the work of Kelly Reichardt seem justified.

Why it’s not in my top 10: It’s a great film, I just personally think I saw at least 10 better ones this year.  You might feel otherwise.  (But you’d still be wrong)

The Miseducation of Cameron Post

I found this to be really sweet and engaging and similarly effective to Lady Bird in giving dignity and truth to the voices of youth.  It felt a bit like a modern day update of a John Hughes film (but with the startling misogyny and casual racism excised obviously)

Why it’s not in my top 10: It’s good, but not that good.

Marlina the Murderer In Four Acts

Indonesian.  Feminist.  Western.

What more do you need to hear.  A great little film that deserves a wider audience.

Why it’s not in my top 10: You’ve got the gist of this by now surely?

A Fantastic Woman 

I think this did a really good job in highlighting the various forms of conspicuous everyday cruelty that hinder the lives of trans women and more broadly the harmful prejudices that nestle within normative society.  The film is far from perfect and is not without it’s justifiable criticism; I have heard it said that this represents a CIS gendered persons idea of what trans experience is like rather than the reality and it is true that the central character is pretty much entirely defined by her victimhood rather this being a more nuanced portrait.  So, yes, it’s maybe more than a little melodramatic but the central performance of Daniela Vega is i think still suitably engrossing to warrant your attention.

Why it’s not in my top 10: and nor are the films below

Faces / Places (Agnès Varda, JR)

This was a really lovely film.  I tend to overuse the word charming (You’ll likely notice a bunch of equally overused synonyms of it where I’ve attempted to avoid doing so above.) but it’s really apt here.  This is a delightfully playful look at the collaboration and friendship of it’s creators, filmmaking legend Agnes Varda and photographer/muralist JR as they travel around France making work.  And that pretty much it.  It’s smart, fun and funny but mostly it’s nice.  Refreshingly and unashamedly pleasant.

This was one of 3 Agnès Varda films I saw in the cinema this year and I’m deeply disappointed both that I didn’t catch more but also that I’m so late in being introduced to her work.  The other two I saw were Cleo From 5 to 7, a truly stunning piece of work that effortlessly makes many of it’s French New Wave contemporaries look painfully austere, and One Sings, The Other Doesn’t, whose first 5 minutes alone are so deliciously, guilefully political as to make this, and discovering Varda’s films in general, one of my highlights of the year.  

While the ship has sailed for the folks of Manchester to catch the Gleaning Truths season, the lucky folk of London still have a chance to catch them all and suitable time to plan as they’re all showing in early 2019 at the Prince Charles Cinema.  I heartily recommend you do so (or at the very least see Cleo From 5 to 7 then see how you go) Link here.

Lastly I want to mention a trio of horror films that stood out this year.

Hereditary was hokey, divisive and derivative of a bunch of late 70′s horror but had a great cast, some surprising twists and I found it to be a great deal of fun.  Others did not.  The choice is yours.

Mandy was a more maniacally entertaining treat, again derivative but as it’s effectively an adoring pastiche of 80′s genre films it can’t be judged too harshly on those terms.  I still think Let The Corpses Tan covers similar territory better, but this has some spectacular visuals, a superb soundtrack and a gloriously unhinged Nicholas Cage to keep you amused along the way.

The new Halloween marked an entertaining return to for the long-suffering franchise and, pleasingly, a box office success but what I found most interesting about it were the sly touches in the screenplay that suggest changes may be afoot in Hollywood.  The key protagonists are all women, they’re surrounded by a parade of shitty men who show themselves to be either abusive, untrustworthy or impotent when the time comes to face up to the embodiment of senseless murderous misogyny, Michael Myers.  There was a similar vibe in Widows, and with both it was encouraging to see politics being injected into successful mainstream offerings.  Lets hope it persist.

Celebrated films I haven’t seen that may be notably absent above:

I’ve heard good things about both Wajib and 120 BPM but haven’t seen them, so obviously can’t comment on them.  Also I haven’t got around to watching Cuarón’s Roma yet.  Or Sweet Country.  I missed that one too.

Alternative facts

In the interest of fairness and balance and the spirit of sharing here’s an alternative top 10 from my learned colleagues at HOME: https://homemcr.org/article/top-10-films-of-2018-ushers-choice/ 

(Just because their reviews are more thorough and better written, it doesn’t make them right)

And a 2018 highlight podcast if you’re really keen: 

https://homemcr.org/media/the-home-film-podcast-special-2018-round-up/

Things I’m looking forward to seeing next year:

The Favourite looks deliciously vicious and entirely up my street so I can’t wait to see that.  Green Book I very much like the look of too and is an intriguing shift for Peter Farrelly that I hope pays off.  I also have high hopes for If Beale Street Could Talk, like the sound of Destroyer, the look of Vice and am intrigued by Burning.  Anyway that’s more than enough for now.  I’m gonna go do something else.  So should you.  See you in the new year.

[destressjournal]

DCOM Rankings #95: How to Build a Better Boy

Okay this movie was really cute! It’s has a couple problems but it was really cute!

So I thought I was really going to be comparing this to pixel perfect, and it turns out these movies are actually pretty different, however, I can just explain their similarities and get that out of the way first. Cuz it’s funnnnn.

Okay. So I think the intention behind the creation of the non-human perfect being is the same in both movies. The main character (who is a literal genius I mean they have to be), has an idea in their head of the perfect boy/girl and tries to create a digital version of that. The difference is that in Pixel perfect, the main dude creates her for a specific purpose and ends up realizing that he was in love with her and that he programmed her with all the things about a girl he thought was perfect. In this movie, Mae just got rejected (by an idiot), and was hurt and started going on and on about her dream date night and got carried away. Didn’t think that she was creating an actual robot.

The second main comparison is what the purpose of the robot/hologram was. For pixel perfect, the main guy created her just to fill in for a singer/dancer in his friend’s band, (but also to create the perfect girl because he always found flaws in every girl he was interested in). For this movie, the original purpose of the robot was an army soldier that could kill in seconds if he wanted to. But was instead created as Mae’s ideal perfect boyfriend that was overloaded with information. (Like, I don’t understand how that didn’t backfire, he still came out totally perfect)

But honestly I really love both concepts in both movies, even if they are slightly different!

But when the movie gets going, it takes a different approach to discussing perfection that I also enjoy. While pixel perfect focuses on living up to impossible expectations via music industry/Hollywood standards, this movie takes a more personal approach from the viewpoint of a middle/high schooler. Like, how fantasies are fantasies for a reason, and how one person can’t be everything all of the time, and no matter how hard you try to bring your vision to life, real life is still going to happen.

The point of both movies is that perfection is unattainable. People are flawed and make mistakes. That’s how real life works. And if you try to look for one person that checks every single one of your giant list of boxes, you’re going to miss out on people that genuinely like you. If anyone is “perfect” they are either lying, a robot solider, or a hologram. Everyone has shit they’re dealing with. EVERYONE!

Okay I’ll stop making the comparisons now!

The story I feel progressed very realistically. Mae and Gabby were best friends until Mae realized she wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with boys, but never told Gabby because gabby was all about keeping the duo together and had a life plan spelled out. And I can tell you from personal experience I KNOW how Mae feels in this situation. She doesn’t want to upset her friend and wants to keep the friend ship but is worried if she starts having interests besides math and science, their friendship would be over.

I’m going through something similar with my friend. Not going into details though but I’m just saying that’s realistic. And even when Mae finds out the boy she created was just a robot, and she didn’t care, at first I was like wtf? But after I thought about it, we are talking about a teenage girl who just fell in love with the dude because he is EXACTLY, as close as the fucking tee will get, the kind of guy Mae wants. There is literally no one else that’s going to top him because he is made specifically for her. And if that’s the best that she can get, then why look for anything else. Love (or in this case, infatuation) will make people do crazy things….

Can I just take a second to be like wtf no kissing again??? I mean come on Disney channel! maybe cloud 9 was the last movie to feature a kiss?? I have no idea what these censors are about man, but it’s really confusing. Haha maybe I’ll make a game out of it for the rest of these movies. It’s weird there are only like 15 left…

Okay back on topic.

I like pretty much all of the characters. And the funny ones like the dad and the brother were actually funny, like they were cringey but just the right amount of cringey that doesn’t take away from the characters. I even laughed out loud at a scene, which that hasn’t happened in a long time.

The villains were the only thing I had an issue with just because I thought they would be a much bigger threat. But nah they were apprehended like 20 minutes before the movie ended. and that was that. Kinda wish they were a bigger deal. But other than that everyone else was great! The popular girl was annoying but not AS annoying as the one in Zapped. That was pretty cringe let me tell you! But the two leads were great together. I do feel that Gabby was pushed off to the side a little bit though, I mean I get that was the whole story was her getting sidelined because of Albert but I feel like she still should have had a little more depth to her character and more of a spotlight. But that’s just me I guess.

Can we talk about mae’s outfits though? Who the hell was her costume designer? And why do the outfits on Disney channel shows/movies have to be so complicated and almost ugly? Like NO ONE wears these kinds of things to school on a regular basis. Gabby’s outfits, maybe, but Mae’s, like she’s a literal alien from another planet wearing these things. Why do people think these outfits look good? Ugh. I remember when people would wear dresses over t-shirts, oh wait, no I don’t!

Rant over. But anyway, I felt pretty invested throughout the whole thing, even toward the end when Mae’s first kiss was set up. I thought that was really clever because it only further illiustrates the fact that these things have to be planned ahead of time and are fabricated. It’s all for show, none of it was real, and deep down Mae knew that which is why she didn’t kiss Albert. But I will admit that scene had me glued to the screen. It has similar kids the girl vibes from little mermaid.

I’m also SO SO SO happy that Mae did the right thing and stayed with her best friend the rest of the night instead of hanging out with the boy that wanted to ask her out the first time. I was so worried that would be the case but nope, she cares about her best friend and many years of friendship more than one boy that she recently met. That’s a lesson for all you young hetero girls and women out there! Friends are always more important than dumb boys. And this movie gets it right. But it was also sweet how gabby was like “sorry for putting pressure on you” and now it feels like Mae can talk to gabby about anything. If a friend is bullying you into doing something you don’t wanna do, you need to set boundaries! And also dump them if it gets worse.

In some ways I think this movie is better than pixel perfect because it gets its characters so right. But the theme in pixel perfect is so much better and deeper and the music is better. Oh my god that ukulele cover of I love you like a love song by Selena Gomez. That was also kind of cringe but I can’t pretend that I never dreamed about my crush serenading me on guitar or uke. So….fuck you disney channel for getting into my 13-14 year old mind and making this movie.

How would this score against pixel perfect though? I think I gave that one a B+. Oh boy…I think this movie might be A range…because the here is nothing I outright hated about this movie. Nothing frustrating, hardly any flaws. Oh man…am I really doing this to pixel perfect…? I think I am. I don’t think I’ll give it a plus though. Just a regular A. I know I wouldn’t wanna watch this all the time.

Wow that was shocking I scored this movie higher, but I guess when it comes to technicalities, this one came out on top. Now for the next movie, it stars the girl from ally….something…oh man I don’t remember the show name but it has Ross lynch in the show. But he’s not in this one. Anyway yeah this one might be a cringe for me just cuz of the title but we’ll see!

[wendynerdwrites]

WTF is Mel Brooks Talking About But Also People Need to Watch Themselves With Their Reactions

Mel, I love you, but you should know better for reasons I will cite below. 

That being said, I am already seeing people taking his commentary and claiming things like “He doesn’t know social adversity” and “He only cares about his own group.”

That’s where I draw the line, because it’s BS and also vaguely anti-semitic. Please do not suggest that a) Brooks hasn’t known social adversity and b) only cares about his group because it’s as wrong as what he says here.

Why Brooks Should Know Better:

Now, Brooks has seriously lost the thread, clearly, because it seems his memory is shot. He’s universally celebrated and beloved NOW for his off-color works like Blazing Saddles and The Producers. But when the OG producers movie came out, there was huge controversy. The movie got mixed reviews, so did Saddles. When Brooks pitched both films, he faced opposition from studios, and he faced controversy upon their release. Studios wanted him to change “Springtime for Hitler” into “Springtime for Mussolini” because it was less controversial. And once it was released…

“The Jews were horrified. I received resentful letters of protest, saying things like: ’How can you make jokes about Hitler? The man murdered 6 million Jews.’ But ’The Producers’ doesn’t concern a concentration camp or the Holocaust. ” 

He got TONS of critical crap at the time as well.

As for Blazing Saddles, there were tons of blocks to its production. Brooks wanted Richard Pryor as Bart, but he was uninsurable at that point in part because of his mental health and drug issues, but also because of his reputation and controversy. Brooks also wanted John Wayne in Gene Wilder’s part, but Wayne refused because he felt the film was too controversial for him. The Legendary Frankie Lane, who sang the theme, was powerfully moved by the song when he recorded it, and when he actually saw the film, he was horrified by the off-color humor. The studio demanded a bunch of cuts, of which he only gave into one. Blazing Saddles got mixed reviews, while our modern “Too PC” culture loves that movie and The Producers on a near-universal level.

So yeah, Brooks seems to have lost his memory, or he might recall how his seminal films were treated in their time. Versus how they are viewed now. Sure, shitty edgelord “humor” is criticized, and there’s discourse abot everything, but Brooks never trafficked in that. He got criticized for it during his “less PC” time, but today people laud him. So what the Hell is he talking about?

Yes, Blazing Saddles would certainly be made differently — no Mel Brooks in Red Face, and no “French Mistake” (which is a center point of the ending, which Brooks himself admits is the movie’s weakest point anyways), but try to tell me that studios wouldn’t be salivating to get, say, Jordan Peele to do a Blazing Saddles remake. Hell, the one cut he DID agree to (when Lili and Bart get together the first time and Lili talks about his girth, Bart replies “You’re sucking on my arm”) probably would be included today.

Why People Insinuating that Brooks is just a Bastion of Privilege Who Knows Nothing About Social Stigma and Only Cares About “His” Group are So, So Wrong:

He grew up in the US in the 30’s, when McCarthy was targetting Jews and Average Americans were more opposed to welcoming Jewish and Romani refugees than they are today of welcoming Syrian ones.. Jews were blamed for the Depression. They were the KKK’s second favorite targets. When Asylum laws to welcome refugees from Hitler’s regime were put up, there were mass marches to “Send the Jews back to where they came from in their leaky boats!” Sound familiar?

It’s part of the reason America waited so long to enter WWII, because Roosevelt was afraid of lending credence to claims that his administration was “controlled by the Jews”. Literally, millions of our people might have survived if not for the social environment Brooks grew up in. Jews in America were targetted for harassment, violence, and persecution in the US. Major media personalities were praising Hitler, for, among other things, “No longer letting the Jews steal money and control everything.”

He goes by “Brooks” instead of “Kaminsky” for a reason. He served in WWII and evacuated Death Camps.

And there’s another reason he mentions taking the Holocaust lightly besides being a Jew himself. In the 90’s a whimsical, goofy film about a Jewish family living in a concentration camp in which the father (played by a Goyim) helps his family “get over” their life there with humor and fantastical stories! Woo! It was given the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. So, yes, he’s citing precedent he has an issue with.

As to other groups… Brooks himself has talked about the limits on comedy:

” In 1974, I produced the western parody “Blazing Saddles,” in which the word ’n—–’ was used constantly. But I would never have thought of the idea of showing how a black was lynched. It’s only funny when he escapes getting sent to the gallows.”

Blazing Saddles was a concept that was originally about using 1970’s “hip” slang in the 1870’s, and Brooks took it, worked on it with Richard Pryor, and made a film all about racism, particularly against Black Americans. And he has always been outspoken about there being lines he would not cross in terms of the treatment of African Americans. (And it’s downright shocking how well-aimed and still relevant the portrayals of racism are today. I was watching the scene where Bart enters Rock Ridge last night and all I could think about was how well it fits the narratives of white privilege and stereotypes about Black Folk. White people are all ready to try and come up with excuses for why it was okay for Black Person X to be shot, framing things as if there’s a “right” sort of victim. They were all ready to shoot Bart until he started playing to black stereotypes as both the “thug” and the “Halp may! Halp may!” stereotype. As soon as it was a “thug” threatening the stereotypical “Uncle Tom” stereotype, it went from cocked pistols to “Won’t someone help that poor man?!” They were so blinded by their stereotypes that they didn’t even notice that the “thug” and the “Halp may!” victim were the same person.)

Brooks also produced “The Elephant Man”, and I don’t think I need to explain the importance of that story and how it relates to disabled people. He decided not to direct it because he feared his comedic style would come through and even if it did not, people would approach it as a comedy due to the impression his name draws, he even refused to be credited as executive producer when it came out (despite being the main financier of it) because he was adamant that John Merrick’s story be seen as drama and not possibly be affected by a comedic lens. Because. There. Are. Limits. Brooks has known this forever, and has applied this to Holocaust victims, African Americans, and disabled folks. Not just “his own” group.

So yeah, Brooks should know better. He’s totally wrong. But suggesting that he doesn’t know social adversity or that he only cares about “his” group is Flat out, 100% wrong, and kind of offensive. It completely brushes off and ignores the legacy of anti-semitism Jews have faced and implies we somehow only care for ourselves. No. Mel Brooks is wrong, but he also faced horrible anti-semitism and he has both worked and shown restraint, dedication, and sensitivity towards the hardships of other marginalized groups.