#when it comes to making fantasy allegories for the very real issues of their audience

[h0neyfreak]

I wrote a paper in college for a children’s fantasy class on how PJO handles disability (specifically ADHD and dyslexia) better than almost any other book for kids that tries to be “about” disability. And rereading it now as more of an adult (I think I was 18 when I took that class) I was worried I’d spend the whole time cringing at my past self but like….I was correct and I’m glad I said it. “Your brain is wired differently and just because it’s a benefit in certain situations (fighting monsters or reading Ancient Greek) doesn’t mean it sucks any less the rest of the time. Especially in a world that doesn’t acknowledge the existence of monsters or write anything in Ancient Greek” is a based take on intellectual disabilities that genuinely meant a lot to me as a kid with (undiagnosed) ADHD.

[marciabrady]

Hi Marcia! I read your meta about Snow and Aurora's ages and it was very well thought! I wanted to ask you about how do you view the issue of Ariel's age? Unlike Aurora and Snow who are timeless or 16 in a fantasy world where it was the age of majority for young women, Ariel was written much like a very modern teenage girl. I remember that in the DVD commentary both Mark Henn and John Musker stated that they wanted Ariel to feel more like a real teenage girl in aspects like wanting to grow up but still being innocent or even in details like her fawning over Eric's statue, which Musker made the comparison of a teenage girl fawning over her favorite rock star poster in her room. She was also partly inspired in Alyssa Milano who was 16 at the time to model her physical appearance (alongside Glen Keane's wife and Sherri Stoner who were both adult women). Because of that, many people have issue that she married at age 16, because many feel as if an actual high schooler got married. I still don't buy it, because I remember in a magazine that Ron Clements said that through the movie Ariel grows from a teenage girl to a young woman and Glen Keane stated that her story is that about a teenage girl becoming an adult, in other words, her story is one of coming of age, but what do you think about it?

Thank you so much for letting me know how you experienced my thoughts! The Ariel topic is a very divisive one but, as always, I have an opinion about it lol

So, I can definitely tell you've done a ton of research from all the references you listed! I totally agree that there's an argument to be made about The Little Mermaid, in some ways, being a coming of age story for a young girl but I always felt it was more of an allegory for the gay experience and found the former take just substitutes as the straight, sanitized version of this. With the original author being LGBT and Howard Ashman adapting it, there's so many gay allusions and parallels that go over so many people's head, and it's so much more than just a straight woman who doesn't fit into her society. The inclusion of Ariel being sixteen, like in Aurora's case, was a nod to the original fairytale (though in most versions I'm almost certain that the mermaid is fifteen), and the film admittedly suffers from slight tonal issues because it's caught between being a fairytale and the newer shift to intentionally making stories more modern (despite the fact that the previous films all had timeless storytelling, I think every generation just thinks they're reinventing the wheel; I remember reading interviews Lesley Ann Warren did when the '65 Cinderella came out and she was claiming it was a much more realistic and modern take on Julie Andrews's Cinderella and, in retrospect, Julie's seems to emerge as the more realistic and modern one).

I think saying Ariel is sixteen does give the audience insight, as I mentioned in a previous ask with Snow White, of how much less...cynical she is about the world around her. She isn't blind to the horrors that humanity is capable of committing, but she has such an untainted view of life, especially in comparison with Triton, and she's his direct foil when it comes to the storyline of the film. I, personally, still take this with a grain of salt though because it's undoubtedly a fantasy film and the reason that we're clutching so tight is because 18 is the legal age of consent in our modern times, in America, but even if this was a super literal take...16 would've been the age Ariel would've gotten married anyway in the time she comes from? That's not even counting what the age of consent would've been in Atlantica or in Triton's kingdom, and those rules are probably different than ours. Besides, we don't know how much time passes between Triton turning Ariel into a human and the wedding happening. Also, nothing is sketchy about her and Eric's relationship because it's impossible that he's more than two years older than her, which still places their relationship in a healthy dynamic in terms of consent.

I think Mark and Glen and the directors, and even Jodi's, take on Ariel is valid but I think the most important, when examining artistic intent is Howard Ashman's, as he and Hans Christian Andersen, are the creators of Ariel. Jodi even says that she mimicked Howard's reading of the lines and, if anyone ever loves Ariel, it's because of Howard Ashman's take and how he coached her. Everything about Ariel comes from Howard, and I think the reason we never see Ariel in the sequels the way she is in the original film is because of the loss of that fundamental gay perspective. So, yes, technically Ariel could just be seen as a realistic teenager who's coming into her own but I personally see her as someone who's learning to live life in a society that oppresses her, against all odds, and in the face of a family that doesn't understand or accept her. It's about Ariel discovering herself and finding her place in the world and I think it's safe to say these things could be true about any teenage girl, and I think it's a great diversion for directors who want to make a film marketable to middle America and generally present it as more acceptable, but those things are so much more true to the gay experience and community. How do you live in a world where you constantly have to hide yourself, change who you are, lie to your family for your own safety, feel like an outsider? Where the life you want is seemingly accessible, but also out of reach? How that move, which will in so many ways be validating and help you feel like a participant in life as opposed to a prisoner, will at the same time give you a new life and love and family, while completely alienating you from everything you've ever known and is dangerous and can cause you to lose everything- even your own life? Does having a voice matter that much if you're stifling yourself and who you are on a daily basis? Or is the voice of authentic self-expression more important? I swear, I could talk about this forever, but to answer your question, I think the teenager coming into her own take is fine (and Ariel being sixteen...again, she came from a different time when people got married much younger, Eric wasn't that far apart from her in age, and we don't know how much time passed between her becoming a human and the wedding), but I ultimately think it's the story of a gay person finding their place in the world and having to navigate through life alone and risking everything to be able to live authentically. There's a reason the Disney studios credit Howard with "giving a mermaid her voice."

[mdhwrites]

Love your wenclair fic! Your meta about Enid's character arc is also really good. It was great reading your thoughts, but I wish you'd go into more detail on the failed allegory of it all.

I just absolutely can not get over the sheer ridiculous failure of an idea that was "lycanthropy conversion camp". What were they thinking????? It doesn't work on any level at all. Apparently being a "late bloomer" is a common enough issue they run multiple camps for it? But if it's that common why is it so stigmatized??? The show never seems to come right out and say there are wolves who never fully shift, and Enid's claws point to her shifting eventually, so it becomes merely a matter of timing before the person "converts". That's a disgusting thing to have associated with the fucking torture of queer youth to force them to conform. And the attempt to cash in on lgbtq+ sympathy through this is just gross.

Ughhhh. I really loved Enid and Wednesday's characterization, some of the dialogue was spot on, but it really felt like whoever wrote the overarching plot had no idea what they were doing.

Thank you! I'm really happy with everything I've been doing in Risk Life, even though I still wish I was getting more done. DAMN YOU MENTAL HEALTH! *sigh* I am curious how much having three different directors for the show caused some of the issues with the arcs honestly. Tim Burton seems to push more for the idea of puberty early on, thus the term late bloomer at all and the idea of never finding a mate. A werewolf that never 'grows up' can never be a part of their society is what it feels like effectively. It also makes the claws kind of make sense because it's such a minor and small thing that it makes Enid feel like she's almost playing at being a big bad wolf when she's got her claws out. Then, when it changes directors on episode 5, that's when we start seeing more of the LGBTQ+ allegory. Unfortunately, the two just... don't mix. As much as I would love the reality to be different, this is the only story I've ever seen where coming out as gay or the like is how you are MORE accepted by your society which feels disingenuous to the experiences I mostly see from LGBTQ+ youth. A lot of people do find comfort in Enid's plotline though so if they do, I say more power to them. Also, the directors theory doesn't really explain everything since I think the writers don't change between episodes? I'm not as certain about that. Oh, and for anyone who doesn't know: Tim Burton directed the first four episodes, then the last four were split between two other directors who did two episodes each. As for the camp stuff, I'm still on the side of it just being... dumb. Especially since yeah, you're right, there's MULTIPLE camps for this? How large is the werewolf population then that you can run multiple of these? That multiple of them are possibly profitable? These are outcasts and rare divergences from 'normies', right? And yeah, as you said, it'd s SUBSET of that race that then needs to go to these camps. It's just... It's impressive how many levels of failure this is, not just on an allegorical level but a world building level. The one saving grace I'll give it is that the show doesn't take its fantasy elements seriously, for better and for worse. It's very much so there more for flavor than substance so it makes a general audience less likely to care about the actual world building. And for some stuff that's fine. For something directly correlating to real life atrocities done to the LGBTQ+... Less okay. That's why from a general writing standpoint I'll give it a sigh and a roll of my eyes but as allegory, I still growl and hiss. I also want to shout out though one theory a friend of mine had for the camps. It's that you get thrown into the wilderness with nothing to survive with so it's wolf out or die. Not literally, as the people running the camp will save you but you're meant to be put in such a do or die situation that you do transform. How does that fit into anything allegorically? It... doesn't so it still doesn't work but at least from a fantasy perspective it explains what they are. It's more of an answer than we'll likely ever get from the show at this point.

And my final note for 'they didn't seem to know their overarching plot' is going to be to Crackstone. Not even how he's a hypocrite who only has power because of his staff. No, it's how we go from a show that has fairly light fantasy elements to "SHE PUT A BLOOD CURSE ON HIM, DOOMING HIS SOUL!" Lady, I think we have skipped about at least a whole season's worth of build up to this level of fantasy, thank you very much! When the fuck was this shit on the table!? But yeah, I could rant more but this is long enough as is and getting off topic. ^^; I'm happy you're enjoying Risk Life, Not Love so much and uh, I might have some original sapphics of mine being free in a few days so keep an eye out for that!

[ponett]

hi i watched the new my little pony movie and it was... pretty good! it was very cute, i like the new cast a lot, there were some nice heartfelt moments that had some surprising depth, all the locations were really pretty to look at, the poppy musical numbers were fun, the character animation is really lively. it's a solid little fantasy adventure flick for kids. i do have mixed feelings about the story though. here are some casual-ish thoughts. (i posted some of this on twitter last night but i have even more thoughts now. i'm sorry. i'm so sorry)

spoilers below the cut

okay so, i liked it a lot when it was just letting the new characters play off each other, but unfortunately my fears came true and almost the entire movie is laser focused on the oversimplified extremely on-the-nose trump era racism allegory plot. i do have to cut it some slack for their good intentions, and this is a 90 minute animated movie for 5-year-olds, so there's only so much they can do. it did also have a bit more nuance than i expected at points. (it's more nuanced than zootopia, for what it's worth. not that that's hard.) and hell, friendship is magic also screwed up its attempts at similar topics, and y'all know how much i still love that show. so it's not like i hate this movie. but it has such an oversimplified "we should all be friends!" take on real issues, and it frustrates me that it completely dominates the film, being the main focus of almost every single scene

there's some interesting stuff where they show how those in power are stoking peoples' fears to maintain their own power. like the big factory in the earth pony town is essentially an arms manufacturer capitalizing on the fear of outsiders, the cops mainly exist to uphold the laws segregating the ponies, the pegasus royal family pretends they still have the ability to fly and this lie seems to be the only reason they're in power (the queen literally gets arrested the second the truth comes out lol). but then they all just kind of... see the error of their ways shortly after meeting other types of pony, and there are no repercussions? not saying this toy commercial cartoon for little girls needs to fuckin kill the bad guys or throw them in jail or whatever, but we don't even get like a "they made them turn the arms factory into something else" type resolution, and no one even really acknowledges that these characters did anything wrong. no one is considered an oppressor, the movie takes for granted that these people in power who derive their power from bigotry were just misguided, and that they'll totally change their beliefs as soon as they're presented with new information. society is fundamentally unjust, but none of the individuals maintaining that unjust status quo are at fault for doing so

i also don't know if it's a good or bad thing that there's no explanation for why the ponies hate each other now. like on the one hand at least there's no historical backstory that inadvertently justifies the prejudices (like zootopia and its story about how the predators used to eat the prey). but on the other hand... how the hell did they get from g4 to here in the intervening centuries? at my most uncharitable it feels like this whole story about how equestria used to be this land where everyone got along and now everyone is divided is a heavy-handed metaphor for The Sudden Division Of America In The Trump Era as it's perceived by a lot of liberals. history didn't logically lead us to this point, no one is really at fault, everyone just arbitrarily started hating each other at some point and we just all need to put that aside and get along again. it's almost the FiM episode about how the cowboys and the natives should just learn to share all over again. (again: i will admit this is an uncharitable read of the film)

(sidebar with BIG SPOILERS: the very end also really bugged me, but that's more just a personal taste thing. in the leadup to g5 i was excited to see them make an earth pony the protagonist. i thought that was a nice change of pace after nine seasons of twilight. but then in the end of the movie, after sunny delivers the moral, she's magically turned into an alicorn... like oh we're just doing that again huh. okay. it also doesn't really gel with this story where the different types of pony are being used for a racism/xenophobia allegory)

i feel a little bad hyper-focusing on the way the allegory falls apart like this, but like. the allegory is the entire fucking movie lol. they are constantly talking about it in every scene, the first song mentions "building a wall," the main antagonist (who may or may not be intended to evoke trump???) manipulates the earth ponies' prejudices to make them all go full fascist, etc. it is not subtle. of course, this story isn't ALL bad - the adventures along the way were fun, i was relieved when everyone realized that the macguffin wouldn't magically make everyone get along again (although realizing this DOES make the macguffin restore everyone's magic which seems to mostly fix everything, so... lol), and a message about looking past stereotypes and misinformation to befriend people who are different from you definitely isn't a bad one for a kids' film. and obviously a story with this target demographic is ALWAYS going to have to simplify reality a bit. it's just extremely obvious that they wanted to go for a nuanced topical political story that would surprise the parents in the audience and maybe teach kids a thing or two, and it turned out messy

but again, i liked the characters. it was nice to look at. it was cute. i'll gladly watch a new show with these characters. i hope the inevitable show focuses less on this political allegory though lol

anyway there's a shot of fluttershy and rainbow dash in the opening scene so 10/10

[disasterhumans]

i swear this isnt malicious, im curious. if its not okay to have a sentient species be 'evil' or 'good,' (and yeah, both are lazy at best), why is it okay for /creatures/ in DnD to be 'evil' or 'good'? why is it okay for less humanoid sentients, like dragons, to be 'chromatic is evil' and 'metallic is good'? and if we recognize traits even within species in real animals (like labradors being really mellow dogs compared to huskies being high strung) why is it awful for sentients to be different?

[Heads up to critters avoiding C1 spoilers that there is some discussion of the Chroma Conclave arc in this post. It’s not super detailed, and doesn’t spoil specific plot points; it’s mostly general analysis of the framing plot of that arc.]

I’m not sure that I do think it’s okay for sapient creatures to be “evil” or “good.” Or at the very least, I’m not sure it makes sense for sapient creatures to have ingrained moral alignments. At the same time, even just bringing it down to semantics, it’s different to have an evil “race,” versus an evil “creature.” It’s a distinction that gets wibbly, because of course Orcs are just as fictional as dragons. But where Orcs were derived from existing racial stereotypes, dragons are derived from folklore and fairy tales. Part of the point I was making in my previous post is that the moment the word “race” got involved in the project of essentializing traits in fantasy species, the concept became inextricably linked to our real world understanding of race.

“Monsters” and “creatures” are often used as allegories in the stories they appear in–this is how the Chroma Conclave works in campaign 1. Sure, Vorugal, Umbrasyl, Raishan, and Thordak all have character and personality traits. But Matt’s construction has them representing traditional “vices” (wrath, pride, greed, vanity, etc.). It doesn’t make any particular sense why a red dragon is vain, or a green dragon is deceitful, but those details are drawing from a narrative tradition of using symbolism to represent specific themes and attributes. I don’t think that having inherently evil dragons contributes to the problem of implying race has a determining factor in morality in the same way having inherently evil Orcs, Goblins, or Drow does. At the same time, I think that it’s a weak narrative tool if you’re planning on having dragons populate your world as actual characters (and not just allegorical figures). 

The fact that J’Mon Sa Ord is a fully developed character with motives, beliefs, and goals, where most of the Chroma Conclave exist as caricatures* doesn’t make a whole lot of logical sense. What allows metallic dragons to be paragons of virtue and to operate within humanoid cultures, where chromatic dragons are seemingly only interested in acquiring wealth and power? What prevents J’Mon Sa Ord from being a black dragon versus a brass dragon? There may not be anything “wrong” with chromatic dragons being inherently “evil,” but what purpose is it serving? I get that when it comes to role-playing games and world-building that it’s sometimes easier to paint with a broad brush: if your hero can identify an evil dragon on sight, it makes saving the world a lot easier. That doesn’t mean those decisions don’t have broader implications.

I think this question hits at two separate–if intertwined–conversations about some of D&D’s fundamental building blocks. You’ve got the conversation about representations of “race” in the game, and the moral alignment system that makes up a large mechanical component of the game. I have a objections to D&D’s morality system that are entirely separate from my issues with how D&D canon handles race. Morality (much like racial traits) gets simplified into something that can be quantified or fixed, ignoring the ways morality actually operates in the world. I understand the way mechanizing this concept provides a foundation for entry into a complex gaming system. I even think there are creative ways to use and explore the alignment system–sometimes the constraints of a rigid system allows you to explore what happens when you push up against those very boundaries. But the alignment system often logically falls apart the longer you look at it.

As far as personality traits in other species goes: first off, I don’t think dog breeds exist as a helpful point of comparison for this conversation. I am not an animal behaviorist, nor a biologist, so I’m not going to go into the concept different dog breeds having different observed temperaments. I am also not a philosopher, so I’m not really equipped for a larger conversation about sentience vs. sapience. But, the important thing about sapience over sentience, is that sapient beings generally understand the concept of there being “right” and “wrong” actions, and make decisions accordingly. There’s a reason why beasts in D&D are unaligned: non-sapient creatures act primarily on instinct, without regard for morality. 

I will also point to something I said toward the end of my earlier post–“seemingly inherent racial/species differences can be rooted in things that are legitimately value-neutral qualities of your fantasy race.” I don’t think that it’s “awful” to suggest there might be inherent differences across species. You could, for example, have one race in your world have, on average, higher levels of serotonin. That’s not going to markedly affect their actions and morals, beyond them generally having a happier disposition and better executive functioning skills, perhaps. 

The idea that different races are inherently more aggressive, or virile, or “lazy,” are all based in racist and eugenicist logic. That’s without even getting into the way specific fantasy races have drawn on specific racial stereotypes. The very idea that there is some biological imperative involved in morality or behavior is specious. And, look, I get that not every sci-fi/fantasy writer has studied race, gender, and sociology. I get that these things are ingrained into our understanding of the genre. It’s easy to fall back on those narrative and world-building shortcuts when creating a story or setting. I’m not trying to make a value judgment or moral accusation against the writers at Wizards of the Coast. However, I think it’s important to point out the places where creatives are (often unintentionally) reifying negative social dynamics.

At the heart of it, I think the idea of inherent morality is limiting. It limits the stories you can tell, the types of characters and cultures that exist, and it limits an audience’s understanding of what their own world looks like. Fantasy isn’t exempt from acting as a mirror to the “real” world. Its representational work may happen on the level of metaphor and allegory more often than realistic fiction does, but it’s ultimately still exploring themes that connect to the world the audience lives in. By questioning the default assumptions we’ve come to take for granted in the genre, we open up new, and more complex stories to explore and share.

*Two things on my Chroma Conclave comments: 1) I think Raishan exists outside my framing of the Conclave as caricatures–on an allegorical level her “vice,” pretty much requires she have more dialogue. We also see Raishan interact with VM more than any of the other conclave members. At the same time, Raishan plays into a whole other narrative trope which links disease to corruption and failed morals. That’s not a conversation I really want to have right now, but I think it’s generally important to keep in mind that a lot of tropes that exist in fiction are drawn from stereotypes and prejudices aimed at various disenfranchised populations. 2) Absolute none of this was meant as a dig on Matt. I enjoyed the Chroma Conclave arc, and found the allegorical aspects of it to be intriguing.

[ltamerica]

Thoughts on what Stan Lee (and superheroes) contributed to the world

I know that Stan Lee’s death was some time ago by now, but I wanted to muse out loud on something I feel important, while I’m in a contemplative mood. Consider this something of my own personal eulogy for Stan Lee. I never met him obviously, but he still impacted my life and many others, in what I believe to be a positive way.

Bill Maher, a rather... jaded man, mocked the world for mourning Stan Lee on the grounds that, to paraphrase, “All he did was inspire people to watch more movies.” He also proceeded to more or less mock and degrade Superheroes as a whole, like many in the past have and many more in the future will.

Now, I doubt I really need to tell anyone here why that’s incorrect; I’d be preaching to the choir. But it was, if nothing else, food for thought. On the impact of Stan Lee’s life to the world, and the impact of the Superheroes that he used to tell his stories, give his ideas.

Many have downplayed the value of superhero stories, or demonized them, in every medium (after all, superheroes are in every medium these days). They’re disposable popcorn fantasy, mindless entertainment; they can’t express real pathos or challenging ideas, no meaningful morals or epiphanies; even worse, they’re vessels for Fascism or Objectivism, allegories for supermen who rule over the weak and mindless; they’re the “new” form of god/idol worship. They’re the oncoming Death of Western Culture, of Global Culture. And so on and so on.

But to me, that’s not what superheroes are about. At least, I don’t think that’s what they taught me, or what I think they taught other people. No one reads or watches Superman or Iron Man or Spider-Man and thinks “Eh, I shouldn’t do anything because someone else will do it for me,” or anything like that. Instead, they think “They’re so cool! I wanna be like them! I wanna help people like they do!” Superheroes aren’t about mindless entertainment with no implicit message, and they’re not about submitting to Big Brother. They’re about imagining a world where people have the power to make the world a better place, and then do exactly that. And because everyone wants to be like superheroes, they want to believe that they can, too.

And because kids like Superheroes so much, they and their messages hit us at the perfect age to soak them in. There’s nothing wrong with a good, mass-appeal action-adventure story if it has brains. The spectacle helps the medicine go down. Batman teaches us that people with money and status should do everything they can to serve the common good, using that very wealth. Superman teaches us to be as simply good as we can be, from altruism to idealism to simple politeness. Wonder Woman was deliberately written as a woman of power, sent to whip the world into shape from an ideal paradise isolated from the chaos of the wider world.

Ah, but those are DC superheroes. So what did Stan Lee bring to the table? Well, it’s true that Stan Lee didn’t invent Captain America, and that people like Steve Ditko, Larry Lieber, Jack Kirby and Jim Steranko (to name a few) created a lot of the biggest things we think of when we think of Marvel. But it was Stan Lee who changed the entire superhero landscape with the debut of The Fantastic Four, and pretty much all his works and contributions revolved around a single main idea:

Superheroes are people too.

That is to say, superheroes, for all their grand power and flashy costumes, are flawed, limited individuals who make mistakes, have issues, and ultimately can’t solve everything, in their lives or in the world around them. Many read into superheroes as the Master Race (especially those wishing to deconstruct them), but Stan Lee’s grand thesis behind the heroes he created and the stories he told are that, even with their amazing, impossible powers and their talents, they’re still only human. And yet, despite being only human, they still try to help, to make the world a better place, even if it costs them. And with the success of the comic books he created, that idea took hold and transformed the entire industry, changing even DC’s tune.

Stan Lee in generally loved to push the envelope when it came to superheroes, and he did most of it in a decade all about cultural revolution: the 1960s. He created the X-Men to talk about prejudice and superstition; he created Iron Man (currently the MCU’s heart and soul) specifically to make his target audience connect with the kind of man they would normally hate. He created the Black Panther to express the concept of an African nation leagues ahead of the rest of the world; he published books without the Comics Code Authority consent, opening the floodgates for comic books to publish more subversive and mature content. And of course, he created Spider-Man, who I’ll be getting to more later.

Now, again: it’s true that Stan Lee didn’t do it all alone. And as Jack Kirby could most certainly attest, he was not a man above misdeed or vanity. Nor did he himself actually write the Superhero content most of us today grew up with. He didn’t write the Tobey Maguire Spidey movies, or the PS1 Spidey game (though he did narrate that one, and I grew up listening directly to his one-of-a-kind flair for narrating and hyping). But if it wasn’t for him, none of those things would exist today. And they were all created and written with his central idea in mind, something that set Marvel apart from the competition back in the day, but is now the standard to everything Superhero: Superheroes aren’t perfect, they’re people like us, people who screw up and have issues, but who pick themselves back up and then learn from their mistakes. And most importantly of all, they still do the right thing.

Which brings me to Spider-Man. I don’t think I’ll get much disagreement when I say Spider-Man is the biggest/most important thing Stan Lee ever made or helped make. He’s big; everyone has grown up with Spider-Man and his adventures, whether through comic books, cartoons, movies or games. My dad never gets tired of telling me about that part in Secret Wars when he made a fool of the entire X-Men team without really even trying, or all the times he gets serious and wipes the floor with whoever he’s fighting. And he’s unique; no other superhero in all of the superhero landscape is really like Spidey.

So what point am I getting at here? Well, Spider-Man even today is probably one the best role models a kid could have in fiction, and given how universal he is, that’s a good thing. For all of his money problems, for all that he’s vilified, for all that he’s lost, he does the right thing, and he keeps up a friendly, upbeat attitude in front of the people he’s saving. He’s been faced with some hard decisions, but even when those decisions are absolutely miserable, he makes the choice he knows is the right one (if you’ve seen the recent Spider-Man video game, you know exactly what I’m talking about).

And that’s exactly how Stan Lee envisioned him, wrote him. Plenty of people have written Spider-Man stories, but (at least when they’re written well) they always stick to the mold that Stan Lee created.

And that’s why Stan Lee was so loved, and so important; that’s the good that he put in the world. I grew up with a superhero who was just a naive kid from Queens who gets dragged through the gutter again and again, yet never gives up and never breaks his integrity, never abuses his vast power even when nobody could really blame him if he did. Spider-Man doesn’t use his powers for himself, he uses them to help as many people as he can. Spider-Man taught me, as cliche as the line has become by now, that With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. And I wanted to be like him; I still do. After all this time, Spider-Man is still “cool”.

And I’m not the only one who grew up with Spider-Man or that message. Pretty much all of us did. Because Stan Lee created that superhero and wrote those words in Amazing Fantasy #15, millions (perhaps billions, given Spidey’s popularity abroad) of people had a positive influence, one that they willingly read or watched again and again as it surreptitiously told them the right way to behave. That if you have the ability to do the right thing, you do the right thing.

So yeah, that’s why everyone loved Stan Lee in life, and why they mourn him in death. It’s why he’s considered not just famous, but important. The things we soak up in our youth are important to how we turn out, even if we don’t realize it, even if they’re not considered “Art” or made to be “Art”. Superheroes as a concept are all about doing everything you can to help others even when it’s hard, and Spider-Man managed to condense that concept into the phrase we all know and love. He’s all about the struggle of being a good person in a life filled with a hundred personal problems, and Stan Lee brought him and what he stands for to the entire world, along with all the other Superheroes he created.

So thanks, Stan Lee. Rest in peace.

[theonceoverthinker]

OUAT Rewatch: 1X05 - That Still Small Voice

...Well this ended up being more of a mixed bag than I bargained for. 

Want to see what I mean? Head down below the cut!

Press Release As Sheriff Graham deputizes Emma, the ground shakes and a giant sinkhole mysteriously appears at the edge of town. But a curious Henry’s life is placed in danger when he decides to explore the innards of the sinkhole to see if its contents can link the inhabitants of Storybrooke to the fairytale world. Meanwhile, back in the fairytale world, Jiminy Cricket yearns to leave the family business and transform into the person he wants to be. General Thoughts Past Wow, Jiminy’s parents are annoying from their first scene, and not really in a pleasant way actually good annoying characters are. I get that that’s not the case, but I think about Sean’s dad from the last episode in how he was annoying, but not without a touch of depth. Jiminy’s parents are just obnoxious. There are ways of making good characters that are obnoxious and cartoonishly evil (Cruella), but there needs to be a level of pleasantness there for the audience. Hell, we actually get to see that in this same episode with Rumple. Rumple is evil, but creepy. We know that his success is something to be feared, but the way Robert Carlyle portrays him with a degree of subtlety and extra layers to everything he says makes me not want to groan in annoyance as I’m watching him. I had to continuously pause the scenes with Jiminy’s parents because they were too annoying to watch and that’s a problem. To serve this intended conflict, the parents either needed to be charming or manipulative enough that Jiminy would be deluded into thinking that they weren’t entirely wrong or threatening enough that Jiminy couldn’t fight back, but they ended up doing neither. In addition, the conflict is unpleasant. Now, my problem doesn’t lie with Jiminy sticking with his parents. I know guilt well (Jewish guilt is a real and powerful thing, up there with magic and shoeboxes). I guess I just wish that Jiminy’s goodness was shown more overtly. Why couldn’t we see him do something like not steal from families or even put coins in the pockets of people who are old or sick? It would do a much better job of showing that Jiminy is an inherently good person who tries to make the best out of his situation. What we have, however, is him moping about stealing and smiling when something kind is done for him, and it doesn’t really make me feel like his second chance from Blue at the end is earned. This doesn’t happen in the present. But in the past, it’s just bad things happen and happen and happen until he finally makes a change, one he knew how to make from the beginning, but since the episode wasn’t really about him confronting his fears, it falls flat. How is going to the Dark One for a solution that will obviously leave them in a perilous state (Rumple literally says he’s going to collect them afterwards) any better than just saying “fuck off” to them or just run away? It doesn’t paint Jiminy as someone who is trying to get himself out of a bad situation through kind means that go awry, nor does the episode do enough to show his parents deserving of this terrible fate over a simple “fuck off” or just running away. It honestly spits in the face of the reason he stayed with them in the first place (his guilt) because he can’t leave because they’re old, but he can screw them over in the worst way possible. All of this makes the ending of the episode feel more like a Deus Ex Machina than the universe dealing out karma. Jiminy has suffered, but because he’s done nothing to change his situation and the one thing he did do was horrifying, there’s no change between the Jiminy we started out with and the Jiminy the flashback ended with. And I know one would try to bring up the wish, but the problem with wishes is that Jiminy doesn’t have to give up anything - nor is he ever threatened to give up anything - to right his wrong. Hell, he’s talked about liking crickets! If he hated bugs or being small, that would be one thing - cosmic justice that forced him to do the right thing - but it’s not, so it just feels like the universe is giving him a free ride. Present That opening scene with Archie and Henry works really well. I like the question that Archie asks and the way that Henry answers it. The question itself feels real, like something that my therapist would ask me and I find myself recalling conversations we’ve had in the past and seeing similarities between what is asked of both Henry and I to think of. As for Henry’s answer, if feels like something a kid would say. It’s not too deep but it speaks to Henry’s belief. And when it’s brought back later, it really speaks to the growing that both Archie and Henry have done throughout the episode. As if existing solely to contrast my issues with the past segments of the episode is just how spectacularly the present shows a good character who is being bullied into doing bad things. As you see in the present, Archie makes regular strides to help Henry in a way that won’t endanger his psyche or his imagination and when he fucks up, he loses Henry’s trust and that creates a domino effect as to the dangers of going against one’s conscience and that persists until he does things to make things right and that’s how he learns his lesson. Look at Archie’s apology to Henry. He explains himself while not excusing either his nor Henry’s behavior, and actually later acts on the flaws that he himself acknowledges. He clearly internalizes what Henry says to him, and that makes the resolution of this arc stronger. Finally, I want to speak to how great the community of Storybrooke is. From just how the crowds and different emergency service workers interact, you can feel the heart of this town and how it cares for its people. It - of course - comes through the clearest with Emma and Regina and how now that Emma is part of the community, the two of them need to collaborate when those they care about are in harm’s way - especially Henry. It doesn’t last - not even within the confines of this singular episode - but we see those first seeds of collaboration and faith in each other, something that will really blossom soon enough. And the celebration at the end just speaks to all the progress that’s been made, save Regina who chose to not participate. My only exception to the rather brilliant depiction of community in Storybrooke was Graham, who is useless as fuck in this episode. I understand that the police work needed to be headed by Emma, but because Graham wasn’t given some reason to not be there, he just keeps standing around in the background doing nothing and as he’s only in seven episodes (in terms of the present, that is), it just paints him in an underserved light. (I’m really sad about how much I’m disliking Graham in these episodes). Insights Before the episode even begins, in the Netflix loading image for the episode, Ruby is posing like a fucking queen! I find it interesting how Regina immediately respects Emma’s new position as deputy once her appointment is brought to her attention. I mean - she’s not nice about it, but she doesn’t discredit Emma as a deputy, and I find that fascinating. I wonder what that speaks to: Regina’s respect for Graham or just a desire to get on top of the mine collapse? I don’t know if I never realised it before or what, but Henry’s hair looks so long in that scene where he’s talking to both Archie and Emma behind the car. How do Jiminy’s parents make money off of the ticket sales? It’s not a closed section and there’s only three people running it. Sneaking in would be so easy! I startled my puppy when I audibly (And quite loudly) D’awwww’d at Ajax’s photo! Two questions: (1) Why were there no cops guarding those mines and (2) why were Emma and Archie shouting for Henry outside the mines when it’s so clear that he’s inside? I really wish we could’ve seen elves. So many fantasy series have different takes on elves (Harry Potter has them as servants and a great allegory to oppressed people while Lord of the Rings has them as a dignified class of immortal beings highly skilled in weaponry, among other things). I forgot that the glass was the glass coffin! Odd choice really, seeing as Snow, Charming, and the dwarfs played no role in the mine-centric events of the episode. Arcs David’s amnesia - I like that there both is and isn’t improvement to David’s situation and that’s what is improved is physical. It plays into the magical properties of the objects in Storybrooke - something we’ll see in the next episode - and it just feels more real. David and Mary Margaret finding each other - I half liked this portion of the episode. On one hand, the connection between David and Mary Margaret is definitely there and I like the idea of David feeling that all is not right with the world he’s in. However, knowing that their relationship here sets up the cheating subplot (Something that never sits right with me, especially since they both set Kathryn up as a kind person in Storybrooke and we all have the knowledge now that Abigail was someone who was in a period of grieving) makes it really hard to enjoy this. Still, the pacing is good and it feels like a logical step. Emma’s journey of belief - Most of what I wanted to say was touch upon when I spoke of the community of Storybrooke. Also, we get to see Emma doing one of her other duties as a Savior - inspiring people to do better, and that’s shown very well in her conversation with Archie in his office and sets the stage for his conversations with Henry later on. Favorite Dynamic Regina and Archie. I love the way that Regina threatens Archie in their first scene together. I’ve discussed before how Regina’s threat in Season 1 comes down to her influence and here is what I mean. Regina has control over Archie’s job and home and in just a few chilling lines, she reminds him of that, creating a very real threat for someone who until now has been characterized as both easily influenced (Jiminy’s scene with his parents) and secured under the mayor’s thumb (The setup in “The Thing You Love Most”). This scene sits in the back of the audience’s mind throughout the rest of the episode and that makes the moment where Regina is stood up to so satisfying. It’s also very Cora-esque, though is truly Regina through her viciousness as it’s delivered. How much you want to bet at one of Regina’s escape attempts during her childhood, Cora gave her a much more “refined” version of it? Writer This was Jane Espenson’s first episode and I’ve gotta say...it’s a mixed bag. On one hand, her focus is very clearly on theme, but at least in the past, she doesn’t know how to show that effectively without hitting the audience over the head with it with an anvil the size of a clock tower. However, when she attempts to give characters nuance - like she does in the present, it’s really effective. I feel like another read through or two really would’ve helped strengthen the past segments and made it less of a chore to sit through. Let’s just say that I look forward to discussing her future episodes, as she proves she can do much better than this. Rating 6/10. The flashback doesn’t really sell me on the prospect that Jiminy is a good person and after his deal with Rumple, that he could even become a good person. By making no efforts other than moping to stop - if not mitigate - his parent’s thievery, I am completely unsold on the concept of him being anyone’s conscience. In addition, the obnoxious evil of his parents that doesn’t even attempt to find an ounce of charm just made every moment I went back to that flashback agonizing. If I was judging that alone, this episode would have a much lower score. Hell, as I thought of future events with Jiminy (Not Archie) in the timeline, I’ve realized that I might just hate this character. However, it’s not alone and the present events are wonderful. Archie really goes on a journey of trust and principles here and because there was actual effort put towards showing that he was a good person who actually DID good things. He’s allowed to be a voice of reason to Henry and Emma while still learning from them and his story is much more bluntly a story of overcoming cowardice. In addition, the community bits in this episode show what a loving town Storybrooke is. I’m with Robin on this one, Alice (Though you’re still my smol gay witch babu). “Warm hugs and apple pies” indeed.

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

That’s it for this time! Thanks again to the fine folks at @watchingfairytales for putting this together and thank you to my new readers for helping me hit 200 followers!!! Woohoo!!! If you want to read the rest of my recaps, here’s the place to be! Season Tally (45/220) Writer Tally for Season 1: A&E (20/70) Liz Tigelaar (10/20) David Goodman (9/50) Jane Espenson (6/60)

[shirlleycoyle]

Everyone Loves Attack on Titan. So Why Does Everyone Hate Attack on Titan?

When the anime Attack on Titan premiered, it was an instant smash hit and quickly became one of the most visible and popular anime series in the world. As time has gone on, though, the anime, manga, and its fandoms have run into issues with the messages in the text itself, which some say is fascist and antisemtitic.

Attack on Titan holds the same cultural space for younger anime fans that a show like Game of Thrones or even a book series like Harry Potter does for people a generation older than them. Its first volume of the manga is still topping the charts on Bookscan 10 years after its release.

"It's hard to overstate how important Attack on Titan is," Geoff Thew, who makes videos about anime on the YouTube channel Mother's Basement, told Motherboard. "It's not just this really good 24 episode action thing. Now it's this full fantasy epic that is coming to its culmination. It's probably the last anime that every anime fan either watched, or had a very strong reason not to watch."

The manga reached its final volume this month, and as fans are saying goodbye to the series, they're also revisiting some uncomfortable, and unresolved conversations about what the story is all about.

When Attack on Titan's anime adaptation came out in the summer of 2012, it was at the beginning of a shift in culture for anime. Prior to that moment, anime wasn't very accessible other than to people well versed in internet piracy, or had enough of a disposable income to buy expensive DVDs if the series they were interested in ended up being licensed in America at all. But by 2012, the world of streaming video had caught up with the world of anime in the west. Crunchyroll, which had begun to air series simultaneously with their schedule in Japan starting in 2008, had already had a hit on its hands that year with Sword Art Online, and Attack on Titan would go even further than that. Attack on Titan would catapult anime into the mainstream in a way few other series have been able to outside of Japan, at least not since Dragon Ball Z and Pokémon would air on cable television in the decades prior.

The premise of Attack on Titan is so enticing that I was completely unsurprised that the show was a smash hit when it premiered. The show takes place in a world where the last of humanity is living in a walled city, surrounded by giant human shaped creatures called Titans who live outside the walls. Titans love to eat humans—not even for sustenance, just for fun—so the people inside the walls live in fear of those walls being breached. In the first episode, they are.

It's one of the best opening episodes of an anime, ever. I remember watching it, and then inviting multiple groups of people over to try to get them to watch it with me too.

Image source: Funimation

The discomfort with the story of Attack on Titan began in earnest when the manga revealed where the Titans come from. When the lead character Eren Yaeger first left home to join the military and fight Titans, his father gave him a key to his basement, saying that he should return to investigate it when it's safe. In the basement there are books that reveal that the outside world isn't uninhabited at all, and that the Eldians, the race to which Eren and his father belong, are being kept in ghettos in a fascist society where they wear armbands to identify themselves amongst their oppressors, the Marleyans.

Although the Eldians are portrayed as being subjugated in the present day, in the past they are presented as oppressors themselves, and for some Eldians, the long term goal of all the Titan nonsense is to create a new world order.

"It should be uncontroversial to say that to a certain degree, Attack on Titan is about fascism because, I mean, they have coded Jewish ghetto," Thew said. "I think, given the resurgence of fascism globally in the real world, you can expect to see elements of that seeping into popular culture."

To some fans, it all feels a little too close to the broad arc of most antisemitic conspiracy theories, which say that the Jews rule the world through an ancient conspiracy. In some variations of the theory, Jewish people already secretly run the world government, just like the Eldian Tybur family does in Marley, where they live as honorary Marleyans and secretly control the other noble families. This aspect of the series has made other parts of Attack on Titan stand out, especially the character of Dot Pixis. According to the artist and writer of the series, Hajime Isamaya, Pixis, a military general in Attack on Titan, was inspired by real world World War II general Akiyama Yoshifuru, who is considered a hero in Japan, but also has committed war crimes against China and Korea.

These themes have been pointed out before, with some even saying that the work itself is fascist and antisemetic. While Attack on Titan boasts a huge audience, it also has a noted and vocal right wing fanbase as well; the New Republic even called it “the Alt-Right’s Favorite Manga.”

Image source: Funimation

Trying to understand the line between the allegory that the manga’s creator Hajime Isayama is playing with and his own personal beliefs is where anime fans have gotten themselves tangled up. If you search "Attack on Titan antisemitism" on Google, the first three results are articles discussing the show's fascist themes. Also on the first page of results is the rant of a frustrated fan on Reddit, complaining about people on Twitter shitting on their favorite show.

The question, then, as the series wraps up, is figuring out how to engage with it, and figuring out whether a show can deal with fascistic themes in the way it does without being fascistic and antisemitic itself. The manga’s creator Hajime Isayama, for his part, told the New Republic that he didn’t want to weigh in on the controversy, stating that “Being a writer, I believe it is impolite to instruct your readers the way of how to read your story.”

A big, recurring controversy in the fandom is figuring out how to discuss or even deal with these issues at all.

As a show, Attack on Titan has taken a position of reverence among anime fans. Even if you don't currently watch the show, or read the manga on which it is based, you've at least seen the iconography from the show, especially its military insignia, in the wild. For a lot of people this was their first anime, and their first introduction to a genre of fiction they love. It's the position that makes it uniquely difficult to criticize. In the case of Attack on Titan, not being able to discuss the issues in its fiction has led to a long simmering, never resolved conflict within the fandom itself.

At first glance, it would be easy just to dismiss Attack on Titan as being unambiguously pro-fascist. The anime plays into the militarism at the heart of the story; the show's first theme, a certified banger and classic meme, opens on the lyric "Are you prey? No, we are the hunters," sung in German.

"It’s important to note that the use of fascistic, war, or even Nazi imagery is not necessarily an endorsement of these ideas or regimes, as strange as it may sound," Joe Yang, who makes videos about anime at the YouTube channel Pause and Select, told Motherboard.

Both Yang and Brian Ruh, author of Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii, suggested that multiple anime and manga series at least seemingly try to separate fascist iconography from the acts the horrifying regime committed. Whether they succeed—and whether this is even possible—is another question altogether. Yang noted that one of Isayama’s biggest influences is a visual novel called MuvLuv and its anime adaptation Schwarzesmarken, whose storyline includes an alternate universe German state that uses fascist imagery in its uniforms and also features a fictional version of the Stasi as characters.

"If you look up Schwarzesmarken and Muv-Luv Alternative, you can find images that are heavily reminiscent of the imagery you’d see in Attack on Titan," Yang said.

Image source: Funimation

Ruh cited the forward to one of Japanese critic Eiji Otsuka's books, Debating Otaku in Contemporary Japan. Otsuka writes, "Why do [anime fans] feel that the war machines of Nazi Germany are 'beautiful'? In Japan, as compared to the West, there is a tendency to detatch criticism of Nazism and the Holocaust from the cultural items that they brought about."

"In this way, when something like Attack on Titan makes historical references it may not be with the intent to evoke a full comparison," Ruh said. "Whether it's wise or responsible for a popular artist with a global reach to play with history in such a manner is another matter entirely."

It should not be controversial to suggest that Attack on Titan includes fascist and antisemitic themes. What the fanbase and critics must grapple with is how to talk about them and whether the show is actively causing damage.

Thew told Motherboard that he hadn't totally caught up on Attack on Titan because he was kind of dreading unpacking its controversial politics, especially on his channel. Part of it is because talking about Attack on Titan and its relationship to fascism is so complicated. Another part of it is because the fandom has, by this point, dug in its heels.

"It's because this conversation keeps happening, but it's also not," Thew said. "There's some really good criticism of Attack on Titan, and I think it's important to criticize it, but a lot of people come at it strong and condemn it. That does as much to kill the conversation as people being like, 'shut the up about politics,' because it reinforces the argument that people are just trying to cancel this good show that you like for flimsy reasons."

Image source: Funimation

For a long time, anime fans had no way of knowing what their favorite writers and artists even looked like, let alone what they thought about the world. Because anime was, until recently, a niche culture, and one that has occasionally been unfairly maligned for being pornographic and violent, anime fans in general have avoided talking about the politics of their favorite shows.

"Some Anglophone and American anime fans say that politics in anime is too foreign to comprehend, I think that's a minority position. A lot more people these days seem to have some accurate knowledge about sociocultural politics in Japan, but in my experience they're equally likely to combine a dollop of knowledge about current circumstances in Japan with their own preconceptions about Japan and Japanese society," Andrea Horbinski, an independent scholar with a doctorate in new media studies and history, told Motherboard. "Ironically, while it's never been easier to access cultural and political discussions directly from Japan thanks to the internet, relying on their own preconceptions and only taking on board information that supports them definitely does keep anime fans in this position from appreciating the range of views in anime generally."

This doesn't just affect how fans view shows like Attack on Titan, but also how some anime fans might view shows that deal with feminist themes or LGBT content. According to Horbinski, some right wing fans of anime insist that certain kinds of political themes must be imported from western culture.

"[These fans] insist that feminism and trans people don't exist in Japan and that any anime depicting either is 'woke garbage' or similar. These fans are extremely angry at attempts to discuss the depiction of female characters in anime as something that could often use improvement, or the inclusion of trans characters period." Horbinski said. "They may cite 'evidence' to support their views that is wholly out of context, or they may just insist that their views about Japan are correct because they're correct. Attempts by Japanese feminists and LGBTQ activists to provide corrective information online do not go down well, particularly on Twitter."

Image source: Funimation

Given the global reach of shows like Attack on Titan, framing anime as something that is not, or should not, be influenced by culture outside of Japan doesn't make much sense.

"Anime does come from Japan, but it’s been a global medium for a very long time," Yang said. "The problem with understanding anime as a distinctly Japanese media with Japanese politics is that it makes very specific claims about Japaneseness, that it is only Japanese, that it is only the Japanese who can understand this, and that this somehow absolves the text of its messages."

Shutting down conversation about the inspirations for Attack on Titan, its themes, and how fascist imagery is used, and whether it enhances the story to use it in the way that Isamaya does, means that gaining deeper meaning from the text just stops being possible.

Given its popularity, Attack on Titan clearly resonates with the people who live here beyond just fans of anime who are deeply enmeshed in its culture. The attitudes that some fans of the show have about Japanese culture and its politics have been predominant in the fandom so far, but Attack on Titan is so much bigger than just an anime. It's a sign that anime's space in broader mainstream culture is changing. Maybe it's time for anime fans to put away old ideas about how to read and interpret this text, ideas about Japan just being too foreign to understand. Clearly, hundreds of thousands of Americans have watched Attack on Titan and seen something that they relate to.

"I think it does hold anime fans back, because aside from veering pretty close to Orientalism, it also arms them with excuses on why they don’t need to seriously grapple with the messages that certain texts can convey," Yang said. "If someone presumes a text is sexist simply because 'that’s how Japan is, you wouldn’t get it' not only does it ignore some of the subcultural connotations or history imbued in these signs, but it also speaks volumes about that utterer’s beliefs about an Othered, 'far off' Japan."

Everyone Loves Attack on Titan. So Why Does Everyone Hate Attack on Titan? syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[thecinephale]

Best Movies of 2017

I’m so excited that many of the great films this year did so well at the box office and are such a big part of the awards conversation. I’m grateful that every year brings great works of cinema, but it’s even better when a bunch of people actually get to see them.

This is the first year I’m not counting miniseries. The lines are becoming too blurred between TV and film and also nobody needs me to say again how much I love Jane Campion and Top of the Lake: China Girl.

Still need to see: All the Money in the World, Berlin Syndrome, Graduation, Happy End, In the Fade, Loveless, Lovesong, Prevenge, Princess Cyd, Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, A Quiet Passion, Slack Bay, Staying Vertical, Thelma, Woodshock

If your favorite movie isn’t on this list maybe I didn’t see it because a sexual predator was involved or maybe it was just a really crowded year with a lot of really good movies!

Honorable Mentions: -Battle of the Sexes (dir. Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton) -The Beguiled (dir. Sofia Coppola) -Call Me By Your Name (dir. Luca Guadagnino) -Colossal (dir. Nacho Vigalondo) -Columbus (dir. Kogonada) -A Fantastic Woman (dir. Sebastian Lelio) -Good Time (dir. Josh and Benny Safdie) -Landline (dir. Gillian Robespierre) -Lemon (dir. Janicza Bravo) -Logan Lucky (dir. Steven Soderbergh) -Parisienne (dir. Danielle Arbid) -Phantom Thread (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson) -Wonder Woman (dir. Patty Jenkins)

15. Planetarium (dir. Rebecca Zlotowski)

The first two movies on this list got fairly bad reviews so take my opinions as you will. And I get why many struggled with this film. Not only is it dealing with a wide swath of issues, but it’s also doing so with a variety of different tools. It dabbles in the occult, but it’s not a horror movie. It’s a period piece, but feels of the present. It suggests romance, suggests betrayal, suggests familial tension, yet… But here’s what’s great. It’s gorgeous. With some of the best cinematography of the year (Georges Lechaptois), some of the best production design of the year (Katia Wyszkop), and easily the best costumes of the year (Anaïs Romand) it’s compulsively watchable. Combine that with Natalie Portman’s incredibly grounding performance and I was more than willing to go along with Zlotowski as she explored the history of images, the power of images, and the danger of images without committing to a conventional structure.

14. It’s Only the End of the World (dir. Xavier Dolan)

I don’t know how anyone could love Dolan’s other films and dislike this one. It’s such a perfect embodiment of Dolan’s career thus far. Dolan’s films are operatic because he understands that for individuals their problems are operatic. Pretty much every family has conflict, disagreements, scars, but that can’t be dismissed so easily when they are OUR conflicts, OUR disagreements, OUR scars. I love how much respect Dolan always has for that truth. The cast is filled with French cinema royalty and they fully live up to the material’s grounded melodrama.

13. The Lure (dir. Agnieszka Smoczynska)

There’s one key reason this vampiric Polish horror-musical retelling of The Little Mermaid works in a way that other adaptations fall short. Sure, the sheer audacity of that genre mashup makes for a fascinating and unique viewing experience. But what ultimately makes it work emotionally and thematically is that it’s about two mermaids. This was always intended as the initial concept was a horror-less, mermaid-less musical about the Wrońska Sisters (who wrote all the songs in this). But still Smoczynska and her screenwriter Robert Bolesto really manage to keep all that’s wonderful about the source material while contextualizing its complexity. I’ve softened on the Disney version over the years, but it still can be painful watching Ariel change herself for a man (especially when one of those changes is not speaking). Here the presence of her sister, sometimes judging, always worried, creates a circumstance that allows this film’s “little mermaid” to make the realistic mistakes of a teen girl in love with a boy and in hate with herself, without the filming giving its seal of approval. There’s no judgment one way or the other. It’s just real. All that aside this is a vampiric Polish horror-musical retelling of The Little Mermaid. Like, come on. Go buy the Criterion edition!!

12. The Rehearsal (dir. Alison Maclean)

This is the only film on this list that isn’t available to watch. I was lucky enough to see it at the New York Film Festival two years ago, then it had a one week run at Metrograph, then nothing. The real shame is that this isn’t some avant-garde headscratcher to be watched in university classrooms and backroom Brooklyn bars. This is a deeply humanistic, very accessible movie that almost demands wide conversation. And given its setting at an acting conservatory I especially wish all the actors in my life could watch it. Well, hopefully it pops up on some streaming site someday. But until then check out this early Alison Maclean short film that’s equally wonderful albeit wildly different in tone (this one is more like feminist Eraserhead): Kitchen Sink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt58gDgxy9Q&t=1s).

11. Novitiate (dir. Margaret Betts)

The history of cinema is a history of queer subtext. But it’s 2017 and while it may be fun to speculate whether Poe Dameron is gay and I’d be the first to say “Let It Go” is a perfect coming out anthem, it’s no coincidence that the best queer allegories of the year ALSO had explicitly queer characters. This film in particular is so special because it’s both the story of a young woman’s repressed sexuality and a story about how faith of all things is comparable to said sexuality. Sister Cathleen’s mother does not understand her affinity for Jesus the way many parents do not understand their children’s sexuality or gender. While coming out stories are a staple of very special sitcom episodes, I’ve never seen one that captures the pained misunderstanding the way this film does. Part of this is due to wonderful performances by Julianne Nicholson and Margaret Qualley and part of it is that religion is oddly the perfect stand-in for queerness… even as it represses queerness within this world. The movie begins with a series of flashbacks that feel stilted and conventional in a way that’s totally incongruous with the rest of the movie. It’s unfortunate because otherwise this would’ve been even higher on my list. But this is Betts’ first film and the majority of it is really special. And while I do think she’ll make even better films in what will hopefully be a long career, this one is still really worth checking out. I mean, I haven’t even brought up Melissa Leo’s frightening and absurd (yet somehow grounded?) performance that makes Meryl Streep in Doubt look like Amy Adams in Doubt.

10. The Florida Project (dir. Sean Baker)

As marketing extraordinaire A24 has managed to spread this film to a wider audience, they’ve made a lot of fuss about this film’s political depiction of Florida’s “hidden homeless,” Baker’s approach of mixing professional and non-professional actors (shout-out to Bria Vinaite who deserves as much awards attention as Willem Dafoe), and how the film “feels like a documentary.” And while I’m glad this strategy has worked, I tend to balk at the tendency of marketers and critics alike to call any movie with characters who aren’t all rich and/or white “like a documentary.” But regardless of its realism which I feel in no position to comment on, it’s certainly a great film about childhood and fantasy and how sometimes it’s easier to be a parent to everyone except your own kids. And not to build it up too much if you haven’t already seen it, but the ending is truly one of the best endings in recent years, not only in and of itself, but how it contextualizes and deepens everything that came before.

9. Whose Streets? (dir. Sabaah Folayan)

This is an exceptionally well-constructed film. I feel like most documentaries in this style have great moments but show a lack of restraint in the editing room and/or struggle to find a clear narrative. But this film moves along at an exceptional pace while still feeling comprehensive. Every sequence feels essential even when the scope expands beyond the two central individuals. This can be credited in part to the editing, but the succinctness wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for the footage captured. The intimate moments we’re able to watch are stunning and enhance the already high stakes of the surrounding film, the ongoing narrative of the country. This is an essential reminder of the humanity behind activism, the sacrifice behind news stories, and that for many people political engagement is not something to do with an open Sunday afternoon but a necessary part of survival.

8. Their Finest (dir. Lone Scherfig)

Easily the best Dunkirk-related film of the year, this is the rare movie about movies that doesn’t feel self-satisfied, but instead truly captures the joy of cinema and storytelling. It’s odd to me that romantic melodrama, a genre so celebrated when it comes to classic film, is often written off as fluff in contemporary cinema. Yes, this movie is romantic. Yes, this movie is wildly entertaining. But it’s also painful, it’s also telling a story of women screenwriters we haven’t heard before, it’s also showing how powerful art can be as an escape and a mirror in difficult times. If you’re interested in filmmaking and/or British people, check this out on Hulu. Gemma Arterton is really wonderful and Sam Claflin is good eye candy if you’re into that sort of thing.

7. Starless Dreams (dir. Mehrdad Oskouei)

This documentary about a group of teenage girls living in an Iranian “Correctional and Rehabilitation Center” is proof that sometimes the best approach to the medium is simplicity. Oskouei pretty much just lets the girls talk. But it’s truly a testament to his abilities as a filmmaker (and person) and the girls’ vulnerability and storytelling prowess that the movie remains compelling throughout. As the girls tell their stories it becomes clear that the center isn’t simply a prison, but also almost a utopic escape from the daily horrors they faced outside. Both options are so completely insufficient when compared to the lives these young women deserve this realization is enraging. And while the film takes place in Iran it doesn’t require a lot of effort to realize young women have similar stories and circumstances all over the world. This movie is on iTunes and I really, really recommend checking it out. The subject matter is heavy, but because the girls are allowed to determine the narrative it never feels maudlin or unbearable and at times is even quite funny and joyous.

6. Raw (dir. Julia Ducournau)

I really appreciated how Marielle Heller’s The Diary of a Teenage Girl captured the all-consuming lust of teenagehood. So, um, think that movie, except cannibalism. A lot of cannibalism. I feel torn between being honest about how truly gross this movie can be and pretending otherwise because I really don’t want to scare anyone away. I’ll put it this way. It’s really, really worth it to watch this through your fingers if you even maybe think you could handle it. Because it’s just a really great movie about being a teenage girl, discovering sexuality, being away from home for the first time, having a sister, having a first crush, a first sexual experience, feeling completely out of control of your desires and needs. Hey, even Ducournau insists this isn’t a horror movie. So don’t eat anything beforehand, but definitely check this out.

5. Get Out (dir. Jordan Peele)

I hardly need to add any analysis to what has easily been the most talked about and written about movie of the year. But I just need to say that it makes me so happy that a socially aware horror movie (the best subset of my favorite genre) not only made a huge amount of money but is also considered an awards frontrunner. That is so wonderfully baffling to me and a testament to the greatness of this movie. Many great horror movies capitalize on people’s fear of otherness, but those who are othered in our society are much more likely to be victims than villains. That Peele managed to show this without ever feeling like he was exploiting real pain is truly an accomplishment. The tonal balance this film achieves is certainly something I’ll study when I make a horror movie writing back to Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, Sleepaway Camp, etc.

4. Faces Places (dir. Agnès Varda, JR)

Agnès Varda has spent her entire career blending fact and fiction, opening up her own life for her art. But there’s something different about this film which is likely to be her last. While so much of her work places her vivacious spirit front and center this film feels almost like a cry of humanity. Oddly enough I’d compare it to Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky in that it seems to say, “Don’t fetishize my happiness, don’t mock my joy, don’t infantilize me, just because you can’t enjoy life like I can.” I look to Varda as the kind of artist (and person) I want to be in how open she always seems to be. But what this film made me realize is that part of that openness is how sad she can be, how angry she can be. Varda is often called “the grandmother of the French New Wave.” I guess this is the only way the film community knows how to contextualize a woman being the one to start arguably the most influential film movement. Varda is the same age as all those guys! She’s not the grandmother! She just happened to make a bold, experimental film about five years ahead of the rest of them. By ending with Godard, and pairing up with JR who is basically an incarnation of Godard and friends as young men, Varda is really exploring her place in film history and the world, and how difficult it is to be to be a pioneer. No country has more contemporary films directed by women than France and this is in a large part due to Varda. But being the one to create that path is exhausting. I realize I’m making what’s easily the most life-affirming, humanist film of the year sound like an angry, self-eulogy, but I think this aspect of the film and Varda’s career should not be ignored. If you’ve never seen anything by Varda, this film will read very differently, but still be wonderful (and honestly more joyous). I recommend seeing it, watching 20 of her other films, and then seeing it again.

3. The Shape of Water (dir. Guillermo del Toro)

The trailer for this film shows the main character, Elisa played by the always wonderful Sally Hawkins, doing her daily routine. Alarm, shining shoes, being late to work, etc. But even the redband trailer leaves out one of her daily activities: masturbating. Maybe it’s odd to associate masturbation with ambition, but the choice to show that early on and then repeatedly seems like a perfect microcosm of why this film is so great. It’s not afraid. Guillermo del Toro has made a wonderful career out of celebrating “the other” through monster movie pastiches, but this to me is his very best film because of how willing it is to be both clear and complicated. This movie is many things, but one of those things is a queer love story. And even though human woman/amphibian man sex is maybe even more taboo to show on screen than say eating a semen filled peach, this movie just goes for it. I’m not sure if this movie succeeds in everything it tries to do but I so deeply admire how much it tries. Not only is one of Elisa’s best friends gay, but we spend a significant amount of time getting to know that character and see that maybe his obsolete career hurts him even more. Not only is Elisa’s other best friend black, but we see how being a black woman affects her specifically in what is expected of her versus her husband. Fantasy and sci-fi often use real people’s struggles as source material for privileged protagonists, and while this film certainly does that, it works because the real people are still shown on screen. Also del Toro is a master of cinematic craft so this is really a pleasure to watch.

2. Lady Bird (dir. Greta Gerwig)

Before diving into this specific film it’s worth noting that this is one of six debut features on this list. It’s so exciting that we’re hopefully going to get full and illustrious careers from all of these people. But when it comes to Gerwig it feels like we already have. She has been proof that if the film community is going to insist on holding onto the auteur theory, they at least need to acknowledge that actors and writers can be auteurs. Gerwig is known for being quirky, but this really sells her talent short. She is clearly someone who has a deep understanding of cinema and, more importantly, a deep understanding of people. Part of being a great director is casting great actors and then trusting them and it’s so clear that’s what happened on this film (let me just list off some names: Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Lucas Hedges, Tracy Letts, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Lois Smith, I mean come on). They really make her wonderful script come alive. This is a great movie about female friendship and a great movie about mother-daughter relationships, but more than anything it’s a great movie about loving and hating a hometown. Even though I’ve only seen the film twice I think back on moments in the film like I do my own adolescent memories. They feel familiar even when I don’t directly relate to them. This movie feels big in a way only a small movie can.

1. Mudbound (dir. Dee Rees)

This is when my penchant for hyperbole really comes back to bite me in the ass. I use the word masterpiece way too much. But when I say Mudbound is a masterpiece I don’t just mean it’s a great movie I really loved that I recommend everyone see. I mean, it’s The Godfather. It’s Citizen Kane. It’s the rare movie that has a perfect script, perfect cinematography, perfect performances, is completely of its time, and will stand the test of time. If we ever get to a place where art by black women is justly celebrated it will be in the 2070 AFI top 10. It’s that good. Part of what sets the movie apart is its almost absurd ambition. It breaks so many movie rules (not only does it have heavy narration, but it has heavy narration from multiple characters), and yet it always works. I love small movies, I love weird and flawed movies, but there is something so spectacular about watching something like Dee Rees’ third feature. I’m so excited to watch this movie again, to study it, to spend a lifetime with it. I feel like it really got lost in the shuffle by being released on Netflix, but that also means right now it’s on Netflix and you, yes YOU, almost certainly have or have access to Netflix. So you could watch it. Right now. Watch it. Stop reading. Turn the lights off. Find the biggest TV or computer screen you have so you can really appreciate Rachel Morrison’s cinematography and watch it. It is perfection wrapped in a bow of perfection and I really must insist you watch it.

Television!

Still Need to Catch Up On: The Girlfriend Experience (S2), Queen Sugar (S2)

Honorable Mentions: -Big Little Lies -Broad City (S3) -Girls (S6) -Insecure (S2) -Master of None (S2) -One Mississippi (S2) -Orange is the New Black (S5) -Search Party (S2) -Shots Fired

10. Twin Peaks: The Return 9. Jane the Virgin (S3/4) 8. Transparent (S4) 7. Better Things (S2) 6. I Love Dick 5. The Good Place (S1/2) 4. Sense8 (S2) 3. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (S2/3) 2. Top of the Lake: China Girl 1. The Leftovers (S3)

[my-artyavocado-me]

Level 6 Tate Symposium

Susan Davies Through many volunteering experiences, Susan Davies became interested in exploring the practices of artists motivated by addressing environmental issues; her paper discussed the social and environmental issues that are given a platform through participatory art. More specifically the growing relationship between a forever increasing population and the effects it has on climate change over the past 60 years. The paper focused on two artists, Dave Buckland and Olafur Eliasson and how their artistic practice had joined together with science; for example, Buckland’s artistic project Cape Farewell (2011) where he took a team of scientists and artists to Norway to see the damaging effects of climate change first hand. Secondly, a further discussion of Danish-Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson and his work in response to climate change and although these exhibitions produce a carbon footprint themselves it is about the result justifying the means: making a wider community aware of the effects of climate change.

Jennifer George After Jennifer’s final major project being centered around American railway photographers to argue the importance of recognizing photography as a major art form, she decided to further explore this idea in her paper involving the photographer Carl Bellingrodt and his work in the 20th century. She discussed the struggles he experienced financially being a photographer at this time, and how his dedication to walking many miles along a train track to capture the perfect image paid off.

Lucy Mcintyre In this paper the theme of murderabilia was discussed and how the buying and selling memorabilia from criminals such as Charles Manson can increase their credibility not only as a criminal but as an artist.  She especially uses the example of serial killer and sex offender John Wayne Gacy to argue her point: art vs artist. Should we question the infamous personality of an artist when it is a key selling point for art collectors, rather than the subject matter or skill involved?  Dahmer Skull by John Wayne Gacy had the estimated price of up to $100,000 and the world was outraged when he himself was being considered as an artist. However, Lucy further continued to shock the audience in her symposium when she outlines that even the great artist Caravaggio is a murderer himself; The final part of her symposium made us question who should be considered separate from their work as an artist, to their criminal background. Just because Caravaggio’s crime has withstood the passage of time unlike Gacy, should we ignore the crime?

Callum Craddock Centering his paper around tattoo art, Callum Craddock’s paper discussed the work of Arkady Bronnikov and his Bronnikov Collection founded in 1965. He explored the symbolism and iconography found in tattoo art specifically around gang affiliation and prison ink communities which is where the Bronnikov Collection is introduced; In the early 1950’s he studied at Moscow Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Soviet Union and during his work he regularly helped solve crime cases by using his tattoo archive to identify culprits and corpses. Further discussed in Callum’s paper was the link between classical art pieces and those who have the same imagery tattoos on their body, for example the classic painting surrounding the story of Prometheus where the iconography in the painting depicts Prometheus only escaping the chains with help; However on a similar tattoo it depicts the same story except for Prometheus triumphs over Zeus without any help which resonates with the prisoner who had the tattoo as it symbolises his own capture and freeing himself without the help of Hercules like the original story.

Lauren Caley This paper analyzed the mythical work of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the discussion of the artwork and the biographical and social-historical context of his work. She first explained Tolkien’s involvement with war and his interest in drawing a link between the theme of past conflict and his work, for example, Lauren drew a link between the Battle of Europe and the Battle of Middle Earth which emphases Tolkien’s fascination with symbolism. Referring to Viking, Celtic and Roman ideology Laurens research demonstrated the influence of medieval symbolism  on cinematography drawing many more example from Lord of the Rings, one in particular, the iconic Ringwraith character depicting the front like of war; As he is a somewhat blurry character and we can't see any significant facial features just like all we would see on a front line is a blur of multiple people and bodies. To conclude her paper Lauren compared Peter Jacksons Middle Earth to that of George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones and the parallels created; Martin focuses less on fantasy and more of the horrors of reality and the horrors created by humankind which compares to Tolkien’s depiction of the weakness of men in true form. Lauren then included multiple screens captures with similar scenes from both successful franchises, for example, The Battle of the Bastards in Game of Thrones in comparison to The Thoren vs Azog Battle from Tolkien's world. In my opinion, Lauren did an excellent job in representing Tolkien as a multi-layered author and artist who continue to inspire others with his dedication to his craft.

Sadie Curtis Sadie’s paper focussed on using the iconic Godzilla franchise as a visual metaphor and the social-historical implications behind the Hollywood monster. Sadie highlighted the importance of the real meaning behind Godzilla in relation to the Japanese’s fears and anxiety to do with hydrogen warfare using the original 1952 Gojira to emphasise how crucial the original film is to Japanese heritage as a personified political retaliation and how the many remakes of the film has deemed its original meaning lost due to the Americanisation of the franchise and the Hollywood treatment. In the 1952 film the Gojira monster has no scales just a grooved hide which is depicting the scarring of the nuclear survivors and includes a moving scene of a mother with her child seconds before destruction, however in the 1956 remake, they have lost the true meaning of the scene leaving out the speech and covering it up with music which removes the theme of national loss and mourning in the movie. Sadie then continues to talk about the 2014 Godzilla remake which further makes Godzilla a Hollywood monster as it censors the oppression and minimizes tragedy in the film which in turn neglects the nuclear allegory and the true meaning behind what Godzilla is. Although the constant remakes of the film helped build the Hollywood monster metaphor but also, in turn, destroyed the true allegorical meaning.

Lesley White This paper was the discussion of the evolution of film as a technology and how in the 20th century it had rapidly developed as both a global industry and a contemporary art form. More specifically a discussion on the work of American film director Zack Snyder cinematography and how his 21st century work of using filmmaking as an art form is an innovative direction for the art world; She firstly discusses how new methods such as film and cinema have rendered classical art forms a thing of the past as the audience have become impatient with the static view of art. She drew many comparisons between Snyder’s work and his inspirations he took from classical art pieces, for example, in his 2006 film 300 the use of the colour red can be very comparable to baroque artist Caravaggio and his painterly techniques especially that of his 1598 painting John the Baptist; By comparing a selection of Snyder’s films to the works and styles of famous artists such as Caravaggio, Lesley’s research demonstrated how regardless of how any centuries it has been, traditional art can still be reinvented and still appreciated in contemporary art today.

James Thomas This paper explores the films of Andy Warhol, his less popular films Kitchen (1966) and Outer and Inner Space (1965) which are considered very avant-garde at the time. This paper explained how Warhol’s films moving from silkscreen onto silver screen was very iconic for film and media; Warhol found an interest in creating film after he moved away from producing his ever-popular screen prints, like the prints, Warhol found his film very comparable as they included multiple imagery and they were interchangeable and moving. His 1966 production Kitchen was deliberately amateurish as James explained, it was unalleviated, unedited and was considered to be “Duchampian” as it broke through the wall between the audience and cast. James did an excellent job in explaining Warhol’s films and identifying the reoccurring themes within his work.

Felicity Grant After finding her love for contemporary art and pop culture she decided to base her paper on the famous Kings Road in the Royal Borough of Kensington and how it still remains the central- hub for arts. Felicity’s paper discussed many key themes and areas such as the first boutique SEX which is considered to be the birthplace of the punk movement and the infamous Saatchi gallery, these areas hold rich culture and history as artistic centres; With these themes in mind Felicity paper perfectly examined the events in history that makes Kings Cross what it is today.

Through attending the Symposium at Tate Liverpool and listening to all the papers and attending each question and answer session, I learnt that it is particularly important that when the time comes for me to present my own it is especially crucial for me to pick a topic I am passionate about and allows me access to many research sources. It was very interesting to see everyone's take on presenting and how I can use some of the advice in my own studies.