#this is the kind of thinking that gives us inaccurate perceptions of characters like twice upon a time

[demigodofhoolemere]

Watching the Behind the Sofa features for the season 2 Hartnell episodes (surprisingly they’re on YouTube but who knows when that could get taken down) is a weird experience because a lot of the time it’s really enjoyable seeing the various reactions and they’re often very complimentary towards things that you don’t see people appreciate enough, which makes me quite happy, and then other times out of nowhere you’ll get odd comments of a few of the actresses perceiving certain lines as sexist or something. Specifically in The Time Meddler, which was otherwise a crowd favorite among them, Steven complimenting Vicki on being clever was apparently patronizing, and they acted as if the Doctor telling Vicki to keep her nose away when he was messing with the Monk’s TARDIS was him brushing off her questions as if she needs to stay in her place or something, when in context he’s dealing with precarious electrical wires and was telling her not to get her face so close because it could give her a shock — he says as much, but they talk over it. I enjoy very much that they were often appreciating things that people look over and really getting into a lot of it, but every now and again something like that would take me out of it. Don’t like when people attribute their own assumptions or biases as the meaning of something that was totally innocent.

[the-rewatch-rewind]

Another new episode! Maybe the weirdest movie I've talked about yet?

Script below the break

Hello and welcome back to the Rewatch Rewind, the podcast where I count down my top 40 most rewatched movies over a 20-year period. My name is Jane, and today I will be discussing number 30 on my list: Twentieth Century Fox’s 1952 science fiction comedy Monkey Business, directed by Howard Hawks, written by Ben Hecht, Charles Lederer, and I.A.L. Diamond, and starring Cary Grant, Ginger Rogers, Charles Coburn, and Marilyn Monroe.

Dr. Barnaby Fulton (Cary Grant) is a chemist developing a formula to reverse some of the symptoms of aging. His boss, Mr. Oxley (Charles Coburn) believes this could become a fountain of youth drug, but Barnaby is more realistic, and merely hopes it could cure his bursitis. He’s been experimenting on chimpanzees but decides to try the newest version on himself – and soon after begins behaving like a frivolous college boy. However, unbeknownst to Barnaby, or anybody else, one of his chimpanzees has mixed a separate formula and poured it into his water cooler, so it’s actually the drink of water he used to wash down his formula that he’s reacting to. After a wild day, much of which he spends with Oxley’s sexy secretary Miss Laurel (Marilyn Monroe), the formula finally wears off and Barnaby is back to his more mature self. He’s eager to try it again, but after hearing about his day, his wife Edwina (Ginger Rogers) drinks his second dose before he has a chance to – and, crucially, also takes a drink of tainted water. And hijinks continue to ensue.

The first time I saw this movie was when it happened to come on TV. It must have been summertime because my sister was away at camp and I distinctly remember writing her a postcard about how I had just watched the funniest movie ever. Thus began a phase when I was kind of obsessed with this movie: I watched it three times in 2003, three times in 2004, and twice in 2005. Then I got a little tired of it and took a break, but I returned to it in 2009 and again in 2010, then twice in 2012, and then once each in 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022. There are certain things about this movie that really bother me, which is why I don’t rewatch it as frequently anymore, but there are also things about it that I absolutely love, so I don’t think I will ever abandon Monkey Business completely.

This is the second appearance of both Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers on this podcast, so I’ve already mentioned that they’re two of my faves. To people who have vaguely heard of them, a movie like this might sound out of character for these stars. Cary Grant seems to generally be remembered as a debonair leading man, and Ginger Rogers is generally remembered as Fred Astaire’s frequent dance partner. While those aren’t exactly inaccurate perceptions, they are definitely incomplete. People don’t talk nearly enough about how funny both of them were. Like, no offense to the writers, but with the wrong stars this movie could have been absolute garbage. I mean, I think we can all agree that the story is completely ridiculous. But Grant and Rogers were both comedic geniuses, and basically the only reason I keep revisiting this movie is because of how fun they are to watch in it. By 1952, they were both at least two decades into their film careers, and while they did sometimes play serious dramatic roles, much of their work was in comedy, so they’d had plenty of time to hone their comedic skills, and it shows.

I love that Monkey Business gives them so many opportunities to show off different facets of their comedic talents. The silly tone of the movie is set at the beginning of the opening credits, which Grant keeps interrupting by opening the door, and we hear director Howard Hawks’ voice offscreen saying, “Not yet, Cary.” Then in the first scene, Barnaby and Edwina are at home, preparing to go out for the evening, but Barnaby is distracted thinking about the formula and keeps failing at getting ready properly, until Edwina gives up. They both have such perfect timing and excellent chemistry that this dynamic feels entirely believable and natural, and is also incredibly funny. The first time Barnaby takes the formula, Edwina isn’t around, so we get to see Cary being a goofball by himself, and then with Marilyn Monroe as his “straight man”. But then Edwina takes the formula, and it’s Ginger’s turn to be silly, and Cary’s turn as the straight man. And then later both Barnaby and Edwina drink a bunch of coffee in his office, using the water from the cooler, so they both start acting like children, which means they get to act goofy together for a bit. These changing dynamics are all handled flawlessly. Even when they’re under the influence of the formula and acting silly, they’re still somehow believable. While I’m not convinced that feeling younger would really make people behave quite the way they do, the actors sell it so well that it’s easy to just accept it.

The aspect of their behavior that I have the hardest time accepting is that while under the influence of the formula, both Barnaby and Edwina seem to have the instinct to cheat on each other, in ways consistent with stereotypes about their respective sexes. Younger man Barnaby finds himself drawn to sexy Miss Laurel – I know I mentioned in a previous episode that as an asexual I don’t really understand what “sexy” means, but there seems to be a general consensus that Marilyn Monroe was it. Her character is a fairly basic ditzy blonde who was clearly hired for her looks and not her secretarial skills and isn’t particularly interesting, although she does get to say one of the funniest lines in the movie: “Mr. Oxley’s been complaining about my punctuation, so I’m careful to get here before 9:00.” The first time Barnaby takes the formula, he leaves work in the middle of the day, so Miss Laurel is sent to find him, and they end up going out on an extended date. At one point, Miss Laurel kisses him on the cheek, but then he mentions his wife and she backs off disappointedly. So it’s relatively innocent “cheating,” if it can even be considered cheating at all, but that doesn’t stop Edwina from getting jealous – a feeling that is significantly heightened when she takes the formula, to the point that she tries to start a fight with Miss Laurel. Then younger Edwina seems to think she and Barnaby are on their honeymoon, but they end up having a weird fight that doesn’t really make any sense and she locks him out of their hotel room, at which point she calls their lawyer, Hank Entwhistle, played by Hugh Marlowe, who, it was revealed in their fight, kissed Edwina once, presumably years ago. We don’t get to see exactly what happens next, but the following morning Hank seems to think Barnaby is physically abusive based on what Edwina told him. So to summarize: men who feel young want to go out with pretty women, and women who feel young want to pick fights with their husbands and turn to a “friendzoned” man waiting in the wings. And this is reiterated when they take the formula again and act like actual children instead of young adults. Even then, Barnaby is drawn to Miss Laurel and Edwina is jealous of them, and after a fight with Barnaby, Edwina calls on Hank again. I’m not going to claim the way they portray this isn’t funny, because it is, but I don’t love that message, and that’s part of why I don’t love this movie as much as I used to anymore. There are a few scenes between “normal” Barnaby and Edwina where they talk things out that I think are actually pretty good, and it seems like they’re trying to show that a certain level of maturity is necessary for a healthy long-term relationship, which I think does make the message better, albeit amatonormative. I still think they could have made that point without being quite so sexist about it. Although it was 1952, so… maybe they couldn’t have.

There is also some blatant racism in this movie that I realize was common for the time, but that doesn’t make it okay. Child Barnaby overhears child Edwina calling Hank to come over, so he grabs a pair of pruning shears and rallies a group of (all white) neighbor children playing “Cowboys and Indians” to help him tie up and scalp Hank when he arrives. One of the kids informs Barnaby that they have to do a war dance first, and sing, so Barnaby organizes the kids into an “Indian choir” of sorts, and listeners… it is so painfully bad. On the one hand, from a historical perspective, it’s interesting to see how white American kids used to play in that era, but on the other hand, it’s just… no. I get that it’s supposed to be silly, but there are so many ways to be silly that don’t involve mocking Native Americans. A less serious complaint I have about that part is the next time we see Hank after he’s been tied up, part of his head has been shaved all the way to the skin, and there is no way the clippers Barnaby had could have cut anywhere near that close. And while I can easily suspend disbelief enough to accept a chimpanzee unlocking the secret of youth with a mixture of random chemicals, asking me to believe that pruning shears could shave a man’s head that closely is going way too far!

I also had a know-it-all phase when it bothered me that people often refer to chimpanzees as “monkeys” when they’re actually apes, but now I’m more in the “all words are made up to begin with and classifications of animals are especially made up, so who cares” camp. I guess that’s one way I can tell I’ve grown up and matured since the first time I watched this movie, without trying to use the ability to maintain healthy romantic relationships as a metric. But the more I learn about how animals – particularly apes – have historically been treated by the entertainment industry, the less I can enjoy seeing them in older movies. I haven’t heard any specific stories about Monkey Business in particular, but I doubt the chimps featured in it had very good lives, and that is yet another thing that makes it harder to enjoy this movie.

But despite all its problematic aspects and its relentless amatonormativity, overall I do think Monkey Business has a pretty good message about our society’s obsession with trying to stay young. After he and Edwina have both tried the formula, Barnaby has this to say about youth: “We remember it as a time of nightingales and valentines. But what are the facts? Maladjustment, near idiocy, and a series of low comedy disasters. That's what youth is. I don't see how anyone survives it.” And in the final scene, Barnaby concludes: “You’re old only when you forget you’re young.” The movie points out the importance of learning from experience to keep people from acting like fools who don’t understand consequences their whole lives. But it also shows that you can embrace getting older without completely abandoning the youthful joy that people and things you love brought you when you were younger. So the way I feel about this movie is remarkably consistent with its message. As I’ve grown and matured and learned more about the world, I’ve become more aware of its negative aspects, but that doesn’t negate the delight it brought me when I was younger, and having some problematic elements doesn’t make the movie all bad. Monkey Business reveals that life is more complicated than we think it is when we’re young, and youth is more complicated than we think it is when we’re old. Basically, life is messy, and there are no quick fixes, so let’s stop wasting time seeking perpetual youth and instead make the most of the life we have.

This does feel like a bit of a hypocritical message coming from Hollywood, which is famous for its obsession with youth and beauty. I do appreciate that this movie’s two main stars were both in their 40s – positively ancient by Hollywood standards, at least for an actress. In fact, at 41 years old (possibly only 40 at the time of filming), Rogers was the oldest leading lady to ever star in a Howard Hawks movie, which is incredibly upsetting. Grant would continue to play leading men for over another decade, and by this point in his career he’d already begun starring opposite women who were closer to Marilyn Monroe’s age than to his own (he was 22 years older than her), so it’s a bit refreshing to see him mostly paired with Rogers, who was only 7 years younger than him, with his attraction to Monroe portrayed as youthful infatuation that we’re not really supposed to take seriously. Marilyn Monroe herself perfectly embodied Hollywood’s ideal of youthful glamor, and it literally destroyed her well before she could make it to her 40s, so her presence in this movie really draws attention to the hypocrisy of its message. It would be great if the entertainment industry would actually take the movie’s advice and value age and experience rather than constantly worshipping (and thereby often ruining) youthful beauty, but as is so often the case, Hollywood released a movie with a decent message and then proceeded to ignore it.

Thank you for listening to my conflicted thoughts and feelings about this movie. I truly don’t know if anything I said made any sense to those of you who haven’t watched it, which I assume is most people, but I greatly appreciate you sticking with me anyway. Remember to subscribe or follow if you want to hear more, and rate or leave a review to let me know how you’ve been enjoying this podcast so far. Next week I will talk about the third and longest movie I watched 17 times, which is another fun, silly, obscure older movie, so I hope you’re enjoying these. And if you’re not, I hope you will continue listening anyway, I promise there are more recent and more well-known films coming up too. As always, I will leave you with a quote from the next movie: “How do you say in English ‘parachute’?”

[grahamsdogs]

A tidbit about Jeffrey Dahmer, Hannibal Lecter and cannibalism. 

Everyone knows that cannibalism is one of the biggest taboos in our modern society, even though there’s evidence that it has always been practiced for one reason or another. It is known that in some societies, the consumption of human flesh can be considered an important part of the grieving process, for example. It was also common to consume the body of your enemies as a celebration of victory during war. The thing is, cannibalism has always been there. Even when it is used as a last resort by people literally dying from starvation, the practice is still often considered absolutely repulsive and shocking to most people.

What’s really interesting to me though, is that no matter what other kind of deviant behavior comes along with it, every single one of them seems to pale when compared with the simple act of eating human flesh. The most fascinating example to me is Jeffrey Dahmer. Now, Jeff is one of the most fascinating serial killers of all times for so many reasons, but let’s focus on what he actually did to earn such a reputation. Dahmer was accused of murdering 17 men. Men who were raped, drugged, dismembered and disemboweled by him. Their corpses were mutilated, violated, disrespected in the most horrific ways. Jeffrey photographed these men in various states of dismemberment; he had sex with these men’s viscera. He preserved body parts of his victims, including their penises so he could perform oral sex in them later. Dahmer cut off one of his victim’s face and used it as a mask. He also wore the scalp of one of them while masturbating. Also, shortly before getting caught, Dahmer ate the flesh of a few of his victims. Now, cannibalism was not something Jeffrey was into during most of his life as a killer—he didn’t get off on the act of eating these men, and what led him to try it wasn’t even the crave for the taste of human flesh. Still, Jeffrey Dahmer is known, to this day, as the Milwaukee Cannibal. 

The question is: why was the cannibalism, something that wasn’t even a norm for Jeffrey, so crucial to determine who he was to the public? Jeff’s list of deviant sexual behavior is so incredibly long and increasingly disturbing; so why was the act of tasting his victim’s flesh so important? Why were people so scandalized by that detail, that Jeff’s brief attempt to cannibalize would be how he would be remembered to this day? And the most fascinating question: why did Dahmer himself seemed to subconsciously agree with the popular perception that, out of all his horrendous crimes, cannibalism was the only one that was absolutely unforgivable?

When Jeff was being interrogated, he willingly described in detail all of his crimes to the officers leading the interrogatory. He gave to the officers every little detail about how he’d murdered those men. He didn’t feel shame or any great deal of remorse when describing his sexual arousal when he performed all those atrocious things with their dead bodies. Jeffrey Dahmer gave them a complete narrative of his actions in what was described as a monotonous, mechanical way. The exception? Oh, yes. First of all, Dahmer never said a thing about the cannibalism. He told the officers—who Jeff considered his friends— nothing about the fact that he had tasted some of his victims. The investigation naturally led the police to such a conclusion though, and when confronted, Jeffrey confessed he had done it a few times. Jeffrey fucking Dahmer was described as being terrified at the prospect of telling the officers about that little detail, because he believed he would be judged by those people, who he believed to be his friends. Jeffrey Dahmer said that he was afraid the media would call him a “monster” if they found out about the cannibalism. Jeffrey Dahmer would probably had kept that secret with himself for the rest of his life if it were possible, because he could admit all the rest—necrophilia, rape, evisceration, the fact that he had body parts scattered all over his apartment—but could not talk about the cannibalism because he was genuinely ashamed of it. 

The funny thing is: Jeffrey was right. The knowledge that he’d cannibalized some of his victims rendered him headlines such as this: 

Which is not only very sensationalist but also inaccurate. Dahmer did not killed and ate his 17 victims—still, that was the headline they chose because it was somehow more shocking than what Dahmer really did to the corpses he kept in his apartment. He was not intrinsically a cannibal: he was a necrophiliac and having sex with dead bodies was the primary goal of his killings. He did not killed to eat, cannibalism was not his motivation at all (like it was for  Issei Sagawa, for example, who committed his crime with consuming his victim specifically in mind).

So, the cannibalism was what immortalized Jeff as one of the most cruel serial killers of all times. And again, my question is: why? I’m not saying that cannibalism isn’t shocking. But why was Jeffrey himself, the officers (who at that point had already heard all kind of absurd things coming from him), the media and literally everyone else so taken aback by cannibalism? Shouldn’t Jeff’s abnormal sexual behavior be somehow more offensive than it? If you want to know details about Jeff’s crimes—the sexual aspects of it—you really have to dig it and do your research. But the cannibalism? Just google the Milwaukee Cannibal and you’re good to go.

Now, as a fannibal, it’s funny to me to watch how people react to Jeff’s story. Because I kid you not, I’ve talked about Jeff’s crimes in detail to a lot of people and I’m always ready to discuss him; and it’s funny to me that what really disturbs people is that “after all he did, he really had to go and eat them? Like, he kept them in his freezer or something?” (yes, he did). Perhaps I’m just too used to the concept of cannibalism at this point, so I very rarely give it any thought. Disorders such as necrophilia, for instance, are far more concerning and fascinating to me. 

I’m not sure if this is Hannibal’s fault or not. It’s still interesting to me that the show doesn’t give Hannibal’s cannibalism the same treatment it would probably have received from the public in real life. Of course, every character is a little shocked when they find out about Hannibal’s proclivities but they move past it pretty fast. In fact, later on the show Will Graham willingly partakes in some non-vegetarian activities at Hannibal’s table. It doesn’t matter his motivations for doing so—the fact that he willingly sat at Hannibal’s table and ate human flesh without thinking twice? Unthinkable. Hannibal himself is also fascinating in that regard: unlike Jeffrey Dahmer, he’s absolutely unapologetic about his diet (even though the reason why he eats his victims has nothing to do with the reason why Dahmer did the same). 

But still, Hannibal Lecter mutilated his victims, tortured them, dismembered them. He removed a girl’s lungs while she was still breathing—actions that rendered him names such as The Chesapeake Ripper. Still, the second they find out about the cannibalism, the name that immortalizes Hannibal is simply Hannibal, the cannibal (and I refuse to concede that it is simply because it rhymes with his name). Again, the cannibalistic aspect of the murders is the most important thing about them. He’s instantaneously not the ripper anymore, he’s the cannibal. And again, and again and again, my question is: why? 

[booksbookandmorebooks]

The Surface Breaks Book Review:

Intro.

So after a lot of deliberation i have finally come to the conclusion that i did enjoy this book. Unfortunately I did have some strong issues and feelings about some of the topics involved but over all i found myself continually picking it up and desperate to find out what new twists and turns i would experience. Which to me is a clear sign that there was something about this book that I was drawn to and this is usually an indicator that I did enjoy it. Although the word enjoy is one i’m not sure best suited to this type of book, but anyway I digress. As usual i will discuss the negatives and the positives and hopefully compile a few points that peaks your interest. Enjoy.

The synopsis.

So this story follows the same plot of the Disney adaptation The little mermaid, the story of a young mermaid who saves a human, falls in love with him and seeks out the sea witch to strike up a deal allowing her to live out her days with him on land in exchange for her voice. Lovely right? well that is where the similarities end. O'Neil manages to create a world so different and so engaging in the most heart breaking way. In a world that is centred around the power of men and the downtrodden women that have supported them, we see that the daughters of the sea king are no different. She is betrothed to a man more than twice her age who sees and treats her as possession with no feelings and of no importance, not to mention the blackmail and abuse she endures at his hands every night. while being manipulated by the men of the kingdom even her father lies and creates an unneeded tension between her and her sisters, forcing Gaia to look for happiness and peace else where...

The negatives:

so i decided that i want to end this review on a good point, so here are the issues that i really struggled with throughout this book.

The Sexual Abuse.

The sexual attacks and abuse was a big issue for me, now don’t get me wrong i understand the reasoning behind the authors choices for this subject matter and how these events helped Gaia mature helping her find her own voice and strength. Its a development method used to strengthen the fury in our main character… but unfortunately is still doesn't mean it wasn't a hard read at times. i thought this subject could of been easily avoided and replaced with a different kind of catalyst or at least have the attacks hinted at instead of giving a rather detailed account of it all.

The further I read into a specific attack scene the closer i got to closing the book and DNF'ing it just because it was so triggering. While this is mainly down to O'Neil’s amazing ability to create such emotion through her description and her characters inner monologue, it still didn’t make it any easier to read.  This is something i know a lot of others readers have been forced to do which is sad because overall this is a good book and is very well written yet i feel like these sections of abuse and rape have over shadowed these facts. 

The Man Hate Included.

While on the subject of the abuse in this book another issue i had was the amount of man hate i was reading. Now again, i understand the reasoning behind it but only to a degree. This story seemed to portray every male (bar one) as some type of sexual predator. Even Gaia's father! (who lets face it had a very unnatural affection towards his daughter at times) There was not one man who didn’t have some type of hidden sexual agenda ,which i really wasn't a fan of. I love the empowerment and feminist side of this retelling it really was something that drew me to this book but this particular side of the feminist agenda really irritated me, mainly because it shouldn't be about stereotyping every male as a threat, it should be about as i stated above, a woman's empowerment and equality. A subject that i think took a bit of a back seat at times due to the amount of hatred portrayed throughout.

 The Positives.

The first thing that comes to mind when i think of this book is how amazingly dark it is. This story is told through such a different view point by so many characters and shows a variety of agendas, hidden or not.  As one of my favourite books and movies growing up i was all over this as soon as i heard what it was about, and it didn't let me down. The adult take on this very child friendly cutesie romance was so eye opening and made it very apparent that there are a lot of plot holes in the movie for one. from insta-love, to a lack of responsibility and emotions, even scientifically inaccurate at times! The way Gaia's legs are shown to rot from the inside out the longer she stays on land, bleeding daily and constantly referred to to show Gaia's pain was a particular part of the book i really enjoyed. This was because in the movie and the books its only ever touched upon in a series of throw away comments, but yet throughout we see how much pain and difficulty Gaia experiences with her legs just for a chance at seeing the prince. not to mention the pressure she feels in case this is what outs her as a mermaid to the human world. I am so happy that this has finally become such an interesting and valid plot point!

Another thing that i enjoyed about this was the empowering message it conveys. 

The Empowerment.

Women are showed no respect no matter their position or highrachy. For example the princesses are unappreciated, manipulated abused and only allowed out to entertain the men in their fathers inner circle. They have never been thought of as individuals never mind equals.

Gaia our main character ends up finding her voice towards the end of the book and we see her grow to despise the world she knows and the power heads that run it. She even ends up changing her own perception and that of her sisters in response to how they have been taught they should behave and what behaviour they will except from the men around them. When this scene finally unfolds at the end and Gaia emerges powerful and all mighty I got chills all over! It was such an amazing scene!

She becomes hell bent on proving she is a force to be reckoned with. After realising that her perfect prince charming is nothing more than a lust filled dream and that he himself is flawed. She begins to see the world through an adults eyes and finally finds her place of power in this male dominated and oppressive world.

The Recommendation And Rating.

There are so many other things i enjoyed about this book but i wont bore you with those, go and see for yourself and let me know what you think!

but please go into this with a pinch of salt and be aware of the abuse and rape contained in it. 

my over all rating would be 3.5 out of 5 stars.